Posted on 05/17/2007 2:32:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Family advocate James Dobson, widely considered an important GOP rainmaker, says he will not vote for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani under any circumstance in the upcoming presidential elections because of his positions on abortion, domestic partnerships for homosexual couples and other moral issues.
Dobson says today in an exclusive WND column, speaking strictly as a private citizen, "I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008."
"It is an irrevocable decision," says the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family. "If given a Hobson's – Dobson's? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote for the first time in my adult life."
Dobson says, "My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."
"How could Giuliani say with a straight face that he 'hates abortion,' while also seeking public funding for it?" Dobson asks in his commentary. "How can he hate abortion and contribute to Planned Parenthood in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999? And how was he able for many years to defend the horrible procedure by which the brains are sucked from the heads of a viable, late-term, un-anesthetized babies? Those beliefs are philosophically and morally incompatible. What kind of man would even try to reconcile them?"
While Dobson does not endorse candidates in his role with Focus on the Family, he told a talk radio host in January he would not back Arizona Sen. John McCain for the Republican nomination.
"Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," he said.
In March, Dobson drew criticism after a U.S. News and World Report story said Dobson "appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run. …"
Dobson claims the magazine mischaracterized his remarks reported as disparaging of Thompson and the potential presidential candidate's Christian faith.
Reporter Dan Gilgoff quoted Dobson saying of Thompson, "Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for, [but] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression."
A statement by Focus on the Family said Dobson did not mean to disparage Thompson.
"His words weren't intended to represent either an endorsement of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich or a disparagement of former Sen. Fred Thompson," the statement said.
"Dr. Dobson appreciates Sen. Thompson's solid, pro-family voting record and his position that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided."
Dobson, according to Focus on the Family, was "attempting to highlight that to the best of his knowledge, Sen. Thompson hadn't clearly communicated his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him."
Dobson told Gilgoff he had never met Thompson and wasn't certain that his understanding of the former senator's religious convictions was accurate.
"Unfortunately, these qualifiers weren't reported by Mr. Gilgoff," the group's statement said. "We were, however, pleased to learn from his spokesperson that Sen. Thompson professes to be a believer."
Focus on the Family also clarified that Dobson did not excuse Gingrich's "past moral failures," including an affair that ended his second marriage. Gingrich spoke to Dobson of his family life in an interview on the group's daily radio show.
Another one, since this kind of thinking put the RATS in control of the Senate and House, guess we will not be able to count on you.
Rudy is morally bankrupt. I have convictions that I will not betray!
This is why I don’t buy the stay at home argument:
1) 1977-1981. Was this country better off with Carter instead of Ford???
2) 1993-1997. Was this country better off with Clinton instead of GHW Bush???
Very good points. I would argue, however, that 4 years of Hillary (God forbid!) would do wonders to motivate the conservative base for the next Presidential election to nominate and then elect a conservative. 4 years of a liberal republican would demoralize the conservative base and turn voters off to Republicans.
Jake, you rock.
This country is already at grave risk. Isn't it obvious to you yet that somehow, some way a liberal is all that we are given to vote for?.
Sometimes it takes great pain to realize the mistakes we make. Once realized, the intelligent seek to change the path that was chosen.
Hillary, Rudy? What real difference is there?
It will take a person willing to stand up for American values, culture, and the Constitution, to fight the enemies in Asia, and all over the world. Most importantly within American boundaries.
But as far back as 1993, when he successfully ran for mayor of New York, Giuliani has been dogged by accusations that he pulled strings to avoid the draft.
Giuliani, who once said of the Vietnam war, “I disagreed with it,” obtained an occupational deferment in 1969, when he was a law clerk. “He wanted an occupational deferment, which was very common at the time, because he wanted to be a lawyer,” the Giuliani adviser said.
Not my kind of Presidential Material.
Rudi Giuliana is DAMAGED GOODS: No Gonads when it comes to his personal safety.
And how would a liberal Republican be less of a rubber stamp? He doesn't oppose 80% or more of their agenda, why should he impede it?
Wow. One of the most effective leaders in public service in our generation may be the GOP nominee, and too many on this board are going to jeopardize this country’s and suffer another 8 years of Clinton sleaze and criminal behavior. Even years after out of office, Clintonites like Sandy Berger with zero respect for law and order destroy classified documents by stuffing them in his socks. Yeah, let’s get eight more years of that behavior. That will serve our needs well.
Whether we agree on his social policies or not, he’s with a lot more than the alternatives (Hill and Barack).
Dobson says, "My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."...."
Rudy is already fading in the stretch, but if that changed and he and Hillary became the nominees, Dobson's position is loathsome. He then aids and abets the worse baby killer, the worse gun grabber, the worse Judicial appointer and so forth. A non vote or an "also ran" vote is a vote for Hillary.
But I would argue that 4 years of Carter was a major factor in the American public choosing Reagan. We don't know that Reagan would have been elected (or elected so overwhelmingly) had Ford been in office instead of Carter.
I, for one am not trying to send any message at all. I just am not going to vote for someone that I agree with only about 10% of the issues.
Hillary, Rudy, Reid, Pelosi, Mcain
Not a nickels worth of difference in the entire bunch.
Just one side is Republican the other is Democrat.
On your last point, I BEG you to drop it. I had this conversation with the republican "leaders" in my town several years ago. They said after a few years of the dems everyone will be so eager for republicans. Today we have NO republicans in office and the party is practically defunct. Republicans cannot win by losing.
“Sorry, but I really am tired of hearing conservatives say they’ll stay home before they’ll vote for ___________.
You are hurting no one but yourself.”
Same old bullshit argument that the republicrat party has shoved down our throats for decades.
If the Republicans want the Conservative vote then they will by GOD put a conservative in as the nominee.
Other than that they can remain in the minority.
This very statement is the reason the nation is in the state it's in. A non vote for one party is not a vote for the other. It is a realization that neither party happens to represent an individual's views. The Framers intended for us to vote who we felt would represent our individual views within government. They did not intend for us to vote for one candidate simply because we 'hated' the views of the other. That's a juvenile and ridiculous view of republican government. Do I want a poke in the eye or a broken arm? I choose neither. I still vote by action, either through not voting or by writing a candidate in (both recognition that in good conscience there is no candidate that represents my views).
The partisan hacks of both parties discount this view as a vote for the 'other' guy. But if I believe in my heart that government has certain specific roles, that my representative should voice those views, how can I vote for a candidate that has stated he does not? I must either choose someone else to vote for or abstain. This was the intent and the responsibility when we are given the privilege to cast a vote for representation. To deny this or to discount this is a slap in the face of the men who fought and died to create these United States.
Of course I believe the Framers understood this, no I know it by the way they established government under the Constitution. We were not intended to vote directly for the highest positions of power (and even with the Electoral College that is indeed what we do). The Electoral College was not completely affected by popular until the late 19th century (not all states Electoral votes were determined by popular vote until then). The reason is that now the most important decisions our nation deals with (budget, general size, public programs, etc) is affected by men who know to be re-elected they have to offer 'carrots' to garner votes. So instead of doing what they were intended to do, they spend time chasing after television cameras and passing legislation that promises the most for the 'folks at home'. The system of electing public officials at the national level has become a farce.
And unfortunately the only politician currently running for office that understands this is held in disdain because of his correct views on foreign policy as intended by the Framers
McCain is pro life and pro war. I don’t like McCain either, but we have to deal with reality. There is a HUGE diff between Hilary and McCain.
Unbelieveable. We are still paying for the horrible, incredible mistakes of Carter. Iran, anyone? He was in only four years and we still have not recovered. Once he was made president, he was able for 30 years to run around and undermine us as Bill Clinton does today and Hillary will do after she leaves office.
You know look - Dobson’s a nice man - maybe a great man.
But how many times in your life are giving the opportunity to VOTE for the President of the United States?
What 15 times - if you’re luckly.
I cherish my vote so completely that I get jacked when someone says they won’t vote.
What next “I’ll move to France” - is that where this is headed.
If Rudy is the nominee - those who hate him must find an avenue to hold his feet to the issue fire.
Give no room to breath.
Have Moveon.org taught is nothing.
A movement can control a national party.
DON’T FOLD YOUR HAND - play it.
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.