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.
Abortion should be a state issue!!!!! Fred is right on this issue.
Rudy gives me less than 25%.
And that is working off the Republican platform.
I assume you are calculating from the Dem platform?
Actually it is worse than that. Schwarzenegger has been able to pass MORE liberal legislation by twisting arms of those in "his own party"--people who would have stood strong against the same issues had a Dem Governor been trying to persuade them. He also touts things as "bi-partisan" when the only "Republican" in the mix is Arnold.
Oh, I can take it back...from someone who isn't going on and on about opposing evil and then turning around and calling folks stupid, fools and idiots.
And if you're advocating a third-party vote of any kind enabling a Clinton presidency, you are de facto shilling for Hillary. A third party vote in '08 is a vote for Hillary. If you're posting that you'd rather see Hillary elected than Rudy, you're a Clinton shill. I will call out anyone advocating a Hillary Clinton presidency...whether by encouraging folks to vote for her or by allowing her to be elected by refusing to vote Republican at all costs.
This anti-Giuliani-ism is aiding and abetting the Democrat Party. I will not engage in it. I will quietly work to elect Fred without attacking one Republican nominee. I steer clear of arguments with Paulites just to remain disengaged.
The election of Hillary has the potential to ensure permanent socialism in this country. One thing is for sure: Rudy is not a socialist. If you don't understand that, you're a gigantic waste of time.
Such Republicans set back conservatism far more than liberal Democrats.
The choice between Giuliani and Hillary would be a choice between the Nixon years and the Bill Clinton years. The latter was far better for conservatives as Republicans gained control of Congress and forced Clinton into a balanced budget and welfare reform.
As I stated, I will NOT give up a chance at a conservative President in 2012 and a chance to gain back Congress as soon as 2010 in order to put a liberal Republican in the White House, which guarantees no conservative President until 2016 and a Republican minority in Congress.
Gathered that, BibChr.
Dobson doesn’t understand the primary thing a president can do pro/anti abortion is selecting judges. All the Republican candidates are looking at Roberts, Alito, Thomas type judges. Dobson needs a civics class before he pops off with stupid devisive comments.
Such Republicans set back conservatism far more than liberal Democrats.
They don't set conservatism further back than communist Democrats.
You're blind, Sparky. You can't see what the Democrat Party has become since the election of George W. Bush.
These are not the Democrats of the Nixon Years...they aren't even the Democrats of the Bill Clinton years.
These people are socialists who won't stop until the government controls every aspect of our lives, until America is defeated in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, until every vestige of Constitutional Republican government in America is destroyed.
A President's primary responsibility is that of Commander-In-Chief. If you're comfortable with Hillary in that role (and she will grow the power of the Presidency and the Executive Branch by leaps) then go ahead, vote third party if Rudy is nominated, shill for Hillary and watch the country implode.
I will not do so.
No compromising necessary.
How does that sound when you fill in the blanks?
But that's not what I was addressing. I'm talking about those that try to pass laws at teh federal level banning abortion in all states. An amendment is fine, but without that..it's a states issue (well it should be).
Hmmm, crickets. As usual from the rootytoot crowd. I put it at less than 10%.
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.
***Hmmm, you may have something there. That’s why they “feel” like they’re conservative, because they’re fiscally conservative. By your measure, is Hunter a Fiscon & Socon? How about Reagan?
Reagan was 95% Fiscal Con - still supported tariffs, though. Also could have been firmer against Dem spending, but that’s a very, very tall order.
Hunter is about 60% Fiscal Con. Loves tax cuts, but has been a party to some pork, opposes much of the Free Trade Adam Smith cherished, and in some cases supports tariffs.
Hunter and Reagan, however, kick ass on Social Issues, which puts them firmly to the Right in total. Fiscal Cons won’t give Hunter the time of day, though - he’s the opposite mold of what they want. They’d prefer the Liberal who cuts taxes.
Fiscal Cons won’t give Hunter the time of day, though - he’s the opposite mold of what they want. They’d prefer the Liberal who cuts taxes.
***So Hunter gets ignored by the media, backstabbed by Fiscon/Solibs in his own party, and the wait-and-see by the Socon Evangelical “leaders” like Dobson. I have posted in the past that the best thing I can do for Hunter is to pray for him and his family. Gideon took on an army of 300k with a few hundred of his own men, so maybe God is doing the same thing here.
Hunter’s “problem” is that SoCons and Religious Conservatives try very hard to find candidates who will appeal to both sides of the GOP - Fiscals and Socials. So they tend to ignore SoCons who get the thumbs down from the “Chamber.” Fiscal Cons, on the other hand, could give a crap whether both sides can support their candidate, as long as the Fiscals like him/her. To hell with the SoCons and their ilk - they are what’s wrong with the Party anyway.
The problem is that Hunter’s base - SoCons and Religious Conservatives - have to be the grown-ups in the Party ALL OF THE TIME. The Fiscals are never truly asked to give an inch for party unity. When GWB asked for that inch for his spend-happy “Compassionate Conservatism,” the Fiscals stayed home. Ask Karl Rove how important it was to have record turnout for Bush among Values Voters in both elections. Without RECORD turnout, Gore would have been President, and then Kerry.
On the other hand, SoCons are always asked to give up large chunks of their issues to support the Party. Oftentimes, they are told to suck-it-up for candidates they so despise that they were forced to run Primary opponents against them (Chafee, et al). Fiscals throw a fit when offered 90%, yet they are perfectly happy to offer SoCons 1% (and no promises there!), and then demand their loyalty.
Why do you think J. Michael Luttig never got the Supreme Court nod? He was inarguably the most qualified Conservative judge. It was because the “Chamber” found one single disagreeable business ruling and put a veto on him. He will never be considered ever again, period. Bush never even dared try to nominate him.
Hunter has no shot because he opposes unconditional Free Trade. The “Chamber” has put a veto on him, and that’s that. I know it’s sad, but it’s true. His friends, the SoCons and Religious Conservatives, cannot back him because they have to be the grown-ups and try to find a candidate who will please both sides of the GOP. And they cannot afford to even chance supporting him because of the tragedy that threatens us on the horizon in Rudy911, and the big “F-You” the Fiscal Conservatives are working hard to give SoCons in 2008.
I hope Hunter ultimately endorses the most Conservative candidate of the front-runners, cause Huckabee is on a suicide mission from which SoCons may never recover.
Interesting analysis. Thanks.
His friends, the SoCons and Religious Conservatives, cannot back him because they have to be the grown-ups and try to find a candidate who will please both sides of the GOP.
***I don’t buy into this. If the evangelical leaders had lined up behind Hunter, he’d be ahead of McCainiack and/or Romney. Then it becomes a legitimate choice for America, rather than one foisted upon us by the MSM. The reason why Hunter hasn’t gotten these kinds of endorsements is... the cowardice of evangelical leaders.
“-We have to choose a conservative.-”
I agree! That’s why I support Duncan Hunter!
http://www.gohunter08.com/
Or we can continue to make excuses as to why we have to settle for second (or third, fourth, etc.) best.
A Giuliani presidency would be even more of a disaster in terms of unborn life than a Hillary presidency.
Lets assume that Hillary wins in 08. 4 years of pro-abortion governance pass. Now, there are three possible outcomes for 2012: either she will run for re-election, another Democrat (who will assuredly be pro-life) will win, or a Republican (who will most likely be pro-life) will win. Odds are that a pro-life Republican will be elected either in 2012 or 2016. Now, assuming Giuliani wins: we will again see 4 years under a pro-abortion president. However, he will most likely run for reelection. So, in 2012 the choices will be for either a pro-abortion Democrat or a pro-abortion Republican. Either way, we are guaranteed at least 8 years under a pro-life government.
It is clear that abortion policy will be less negatively impacted by even a Hillary presidency than a Giuliani presidency.
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.