Posted on 05/17/2007 7:31:54 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Religious conservative leader James Dobson will sit out the 2008 presidential election if former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the Republican presidential nominee, he wrote Thursday in an online column.
In a piece published on the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily, Dobson wrote that Giuliani's support for abortion rights and civil unions for homosexuals, as well as the former mayor's two divorces, were a deal-breaker for him.
"I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision," he wrote.
"If given a Hobson's -- Dobson's? -- choice between him and Senators Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran -- or if worse comes to worst, not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."
Dobson, 71, is the founder and chairman of Colorado-based Focus on the Family, but said he was writing as "a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party."
He endorsed President Bush in 2004, the first time he endorsed a presidential candidate.
Dobson's organization says his daily radio program is heard by as many as 220 million listeners over 3,500 stations in the United States. He's also seen on 80 television stations, and 10 Focus on the Family magazines have 2.3 million subscribers, the group says.
Dobson attacked Giuliani for publicly saying he hates abortion but supports a woman's right to have one. Giuliani had been criticized for being ambiguous on his abortion views, but firmly stated last week that he supports abortion rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
If Hillery is elected, if scores of corrupt, do-nothing Republican politicians lose their jobs and their dignity, then maybe they'll grow some a) ethics and b) backbone for the next elections.
I guess we'll have to see. But so far, your strategy hasn't gotten us anything. After all, we've been saddled with Jorge Busho for going on eight years. Not much of an alternative.
You say the demonRats are worse? How so? Condi Rice is pro choice. Cheney is pro homosexual. Bush is pro criminal immigration.
I have a hard time seeing the point to all this. Cause no matter how I vote (post Reagan era) it's all been bad.
First, you have no idea whom I am supporting for the Republican nomination, so please desist from making assumptions.
Secondly, why won’t you bite? Why will no one who has stated there is a moral equivalency between the administration of a liberal Republican and a liberal Rat willing to demonstrate that by naming names?
If you’re here on FR, you have some political knowledge. You know the types of people the parties gravitate to for leadership positions.
Let’s do this: just comment on Secretary of Defense.
I believe the Rat SECDEF will be someone like Murtha, because the Rats will have to give a hat-tip to their anti-war moonbat base.
The Republican SECDEF would be someone like Duncan Hunter, Tommy Franks, maybe even Joe Lieberman.
Care to provide me with your observations on how those nominations might work out for the country? I am genuinely interested.
Finally, I am not insisting that you or anyone else settle for “nothing.” I advocate a robust primary process.
However, I challenge the notion that there is something wrong with wanting the Republican Party to win the general election. You have criticized the desire to win the general election: on what basis? Again, I am genuinely interested.
Given a choice between handing power to the Rats or to the Republicans-—and that IS our choice on Election Day-—one needs to do more than dismiss them as “no different.”
*Show me.*
I agree with you that generally the president will appoint people who agree with him (though not always, because, especially in the lower tier appointments, the party has more to say about appointments than the president).
That said, again, you have enough knowledge of where the Rat candidates are on the war and where the Republican candidates are to make some guesses on Secretary of Defense, Homeland Security, and the like.
I really would like to hear how you see that shaking out.
I have a question for the Giuliani supporters. I continuously here that we should support him if nominated because, even though he’s not what we want, he’s better than whoever the D’s nominate. That’s asking the base to accept a pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, pro-abortion candidate as president. That’s a lot to swallow. Let me ask this: how much should we give up just to make sure the R wins? At what point does a candidate become so noxious that it’s no longer acceptable to vote for him, even if he has the R by his name? Where’s that line at? Or is there no line at all, and it’s all about retaining power by any means necessary?
Could you explain, please, your statement that “that’s how the system works”?
If you mean, the “system” allows you to vote for Spongebob if you so desire, yes, that is true.
If you mean, that casting a protest vote or sitting out “works,” that is not true. It accomplishes exactly zero. It’s not even an effective protest, nor does it insulate the voter from or absolve the voter of personal responsibility for directly facilitating the election of the candidate of the party the voter would never vote for directly.
Lou, I agree with much of what you’ve said. But if you’ll just think through some specifics, I’ll think you’ll be more open to the point I’m making.
Don’t you think the Rats, if their candidate (whoever it is) wins the presidency, would appoint someone like John Murtha as Secretary of Defense? Don’t you think they’d have to do something like that to satisfy their anti-war base? That, indeed, they’d view their election as a mandate to go Cindy Sheehan on the nation?
Now, do you see any serious Republican candidate who would, or any way the Republican Party as a whole, would go that route? I mean, THAT anti-military, anti-war, anti-U.S. and so on?
Let’s say that the Rats would make John Murtha the Secretary of Defense and the Republicans would make Tommy Franks? Would you see that as significant for the good of the country?
What if the Rats made Bill Clinton Ambassador to the U.N. and the Republicans made Newt Gingrich? Would you see that as significant?
According to you, the Republican Party doesn’t represent you now, considering that it is considering Guiliani, among others, as its nominee.
Do you not think the country could survive the demise of the Republican Party? Ha!
Are our ideals not stronger than that?
It’s ridiculous, frankly, to make a decision on who, among those available (the Rat and the Republican nominees for president), is the best available to be hired as Commander and Chief and Leader of the Free World *based on what one’s vote does or does not do to the Republican Party*!
The Party will survive or die on its own merit and utility. Our ideals will find a way, regardless.
In the meantime, the general election is not about sending messages to the Party. That’s what email is for.
If the base cannot get "their" candidate nominated, then, excuse me, what should the Party do?
If the views of the base are not the views of the majority of primary voters, on what basis does the minority claim that the majority is illegitimate?
You asked: is it "all about retaining power by any means necessary"? No. But it is about retaining (or regaining) power by the legitimate exercise of personal responsibility for the good of the country.
Doesn't someone, some party always retain (or regain) power in an election? Is there something wrong with that?
If one party is even a nanometer better, or potentially better for the country, than the other party, is there something wrong with desiring that that better party retain (or regain) power?
Is there something good or morally superior about losing power within the context of our constitutional political process?
Exactly. This madness must stop at some point. Now is as good a time as any.
What does far -right mean in your book?Dobsons views dont see far right at all!hes rank and file -god fearing american which in this country is the silent majority.Far right -sheesh!
Duh.
I have no doubt that your loyalty is first to God and then country, not to a political party. However, you have quite clearly tied your decision on who will lead our country in the short-term to your view on how that would affect the future of . . . the . . . party?
The party?
Why?
If you honestly believe that you need the Republican Party in order to have some chance at influencing the political process-—and, frankly, I agree with you on that-—then do you think failure to support the Republican nominee will further your goal?
The party is nothing but a voluntary association of individuals who desire to see individuals with certain views elected to office. The only way the party has power is if, like a union, there are certain things that people agree to do as a coalition even if they don’t personally agree with those things.
In the case of a political party, it only has power if those who associate with it agree to support the nominee, because they support that party coming to power as opposed to the other party. Period.
If someone doesn’t want to support the nominee, why did they associate with the party? Why do they want to cut and run in the fourth quarter? Why do they take a hike when it’s crunch time as far as the organization’s one goal is concerned?
If you’re convinced that the GOP will no longer “represent” you if, at this moment in history, a liberal R is elected, how do you think the GOP is going to “represent” you if you bail on it on Election Day?
If you’re convinced that, if, at this moment in history, a liberal R were elected over a very liberal D, the “GOP would become a centrist party which would, in a short time, undo everything that social conservatives have worked for for 30 years,” do you think cutting and running on the Republican nominee on Election Day will hinder or facilitate that process?
Finally, let’s say you get the candidate of your heart’s desire and he loses to a liberal D. What do you think the impact would be on the country of, say, 8 years of Rat-dom?
What I have ben saying on FR for months. If Giuliani is the GOP nominee liberals win big time and conservatives lose no matter how the general election goes.
I don't particularly care for Romney - but I would vote for him if nominated. If Rudy wins - I'm third party because I don't vote for liberals no matter what ticket they run on.
My position exactly, except that I would add "pro-abortionists" before "liberals" in that sentence.
I will very reluctantly vote for Romney if it comes down to a choice between him and either Hillary or Obama because he has apparently reversed his former pro-abortion stance with a somewhat plausable aura of sincerity, and I would even attempt to hold my nose long enough to vote for McCain under that same circumstance.
But there is no earthly way that I could ever vote for Giuliani no matter who the Dem nominee might be. If you thought that Billy Clinton was the poster boy for an immoral, dishonest, untruthful, deceitful,, unfaithful, and all around bizzaro lifestyle plus his despicable desecration of the Chief Executive Office, we will have to make room on that poster for Giuliani's picture if he's elected.
I don’t see anything stealthy about any of the candidates, from either party.
Believe me, I know where you’re coming from. But here’s something else:
You and others have talked about how you can’t vote for someone who doesn’t reflect your beliefs. But guess what? Many good, decent, God-fearing, pro-life, pro-gun and so on true conservatives and patriots have had to do exactly that for years. How do you think we ever stood up a Republican majority in Congress?
Good and decent people had to hold their noses and vote for Republican yahoos because they knew this supported and brought to power good men and women in other places.
Yet when it comes time to repay the favor and solidarity on the national level, they get a fine how-do-you-do for their trouble. They basically get told, “Nah, I’m too good, too moral, too whatever to even consider the picture beyond the name of the candidate attached to that lever. If the R candidate doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzies, then I’m not voting for him, regardless what it means for the country.”
How did Henry Hyde, for example, become Chairman of the Judiciary Committee? Because I and millions of others stuck in yuck places decided to go ahead and vote for the liberal R-—precisely in order to give conservatives elsewhere the chance to serve in positions of leadership.
So you can imagine how it comes off to now have our fellow-travelers blow off that “sacrifice” by saying “Nope. I could never do that for my country.”
It’s no different than saying, “I can’t be concerned that the Rats might make Al Gore the head of the EPA or Bill Clinton the Ambassador to the U.N. or John Murtha the Secretary of Defense or Jamie Gorelick the Attorney General of the United States. All I’m concerned about is that I just can’t bring myself to vote for that [name that Republican candidate].”
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.