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.
I knew you were going to bring that up. Ford would have been a lame duck in 1980. Everything else is speculation.
I was talking about the primary’s and not the main election. At this point I’m not going to say who I’m voting for in the main election because we don’t know yet who is the GOP candidate.
“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.”
No there’s not and he won’t get my vote, not him, not Guiliani, not any liberal, not in this lifetime not in any other.
They are all globalists and they are all liberals
I wish I knew enough about political science to make a good enough argument against that. Loosing control completely is a definite risk we take when we decide not to vote for the Republican primary candidate. It's something that I consider very carefully when trying to decide whether I'll vote Republican or third party if Rudy is nominated.
I would like to point out that a complete loss of control is not always the outcome though. I truly believe that a major contributing factor to Reagan's victory was opposition to 4 more years of Jimmy Carter. Do we know for sure Reagan would have been elected if Ford had won two terms?
Rudy Derangement Syndrome
*****************************
Voting for Rudy regardless of the fact that he is as liberal as Hillary and Obama.......now THAT is RDS!!!!
I’m not voting for Rudy either.
At the same time, I don’t give a rip what Dobson says or does.
Exactly. What we DO know for sure is that this country was able to bounce back from a Carter and elect a Reagan. If we had to, we could do the same thing with a Hillary, but not if we completely abandon the principles that set us apart from Hillary in the first place.
Then there is that "little" issue no one discusses that drives me crazy - democrat corruption, to the point of selling us out to Red China, with dem US Attorneys in place. The US Attorney is the ONLY protection we have left in NJ.
Right. If you don’t like Rudy fight to get someone else as the nominee. Don’t sit there and whine and count up how many times Rudy wore a dress. I have no patience with this. Get out there and fight for your candidate. I know I will.
How stupid would it be if in your distaste for Rudy, if nominated, you will write in someone else. Wow, good thinking. (sarc)
Sorry, but some thing need to be said. I need a vacation!!!
Isn't that what we're doing righ now? Informing the Republican Party of the outcome if Rudy is nominated?
*sigh*
Did you even bother to read some of the arguments against placing a liberal Republican in the White House, or are you just going to knee-jerk and call everyone with legitimate reasons a "liberal".
Trouble is, he's not a Republican. He a Dem hawk at best.
My intention is to vote straight republican ticket. If rudy is the republican nominee, then I will fill in Duncan Hunter, who deserves the nomination. There, straight republican.
Hobson doesn’t want a Hobson choice
‘cause tootyfruityruty is Pro-choice
Seriously, I don’t know what you are doing. All I know is that you seem to think it was ok for Carter to be elected because it brought in Reagan. I can never think like that, sorry.
As much I detest 3rd parties (and by extensions write ins) at least you'd be participating. I don't grasp the logic of those who're threatening to sit it out. Who do they think they're hurting? They're only disenfranchising themselves. Their political opponents are rejoicing at their lack of participating.
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m trying to use Ford-Carter-Reagan as an example of how this country is capable of recovering from a liberal Democrat as long as the other choice ISN’T a liberal Republican but rather a conservative Republican who remains true to the conservative message.
The only vote wasted is the vote not cast.
Where we differ, I guess, is that I feel the country has still not recovered from Carter. He just wrote a book excoriating Israel, making bad trouble for the Jews, to paraphrase Lillian Hellman. He runs around the world making life difficult for us, for western democracies - all because he had the cache of being President of the U.S. once.
One thing I know about Guiliani (and I will support whoever the Republican canidate is): he will never betray us to the world.
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.