"Evangelicals? We don' need no steenking Evangelicals!"
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 ...
Suit yourself.
But even a 12-year-old voting on American Idol knows that if he doesn’t want a particular singer to win, he *must vote for the other guy.*
As for your view that my point was a “total BS argument that is the product of a party based political system” blah blah blah, uh, NO. I think for myself, thank you. And would you care to explain how you are not responsible for electing a Rat if you refuse to vote for the Republican nominee?
Tell me where I’m wrong here:
When a vote is cast for “X” in the general election, its first effect is to cancel a vote for the other viable (major party) candidate, “Y”.
If there are no more votes for the other candidate (”Y”) to cancel, then the vote causes the election of “X.”
Therefore, the first possible effect of one’s vote for “X” is a vote against “Y.”
If one does not vote for “X,” one is not voting against “Y.”
The candidate with the fewest votes AGAINST him wins.
If you don’t vote for “X,” you don’t cancel a vote for “Y.” Therefore, if “Y” wins, you helped.
“The RNC” . . .
Please. Millions of primary voters choose the Republican nominee. Do you honestly believe the RNC is making any one candidate win the nomination?
Does character count for anything in your assessment of a candidate for high office? If a man or woman has no character he or she has no place in a position of trust and authority over the nation no matter how personally appealing he or she may seem or what party he or she is part of. If neither candidate has that quality we call character the choice between two evils leaves room for a third candidate who does possess character.
I fully realize that the next president will come from one of the two main parties, but I will be making my choice and will not be "throwing away" my vote if I choose not to vote for either of the major party's' nominees and instead vote for the candidate who best represents my views, beliefs, and hopes for America's future generations.
I have always been under the impression that the right to vote meant that I can choose who to vote for based on which candidate I believe to be the best man or woman for the office in question. Have I been misled, and if so, am I being unAmerican or unpatriotic by choosing to vote my conscience rather than my pocketbook or my party loyalty? If I follow the crowd and vote for my party's unworthy nominee because I know that the worthy candidate who best represents my ideals and beliefs has no chance of being elected, doesn't that make me nothing more than a sheeplike crowd follower?
You give the RNC way too much credit.
People run because they want to win. That’s what is pretty simple.
The people in the race today are there because they think they can convince millions of Republican primary voters to vote for them. That’s what is pretty simple. It has nothing to do with what the RNC thinks.
And you’re flat-out wrong if you think bailing on the GOP on Election Day would hinder what you predict would be the devolution of the party (I don’t agree). Now, how would that work?
Are you saying you think the party-—meaning all those millions of people who voted differently than you in the primaries and the general election-—are somehow going to come crawling back to you on Wednesday?
What would be their motivation for doing so? So they can be undercut by you again sometime in the future when the majority’s will won’t bend to the minority?
All that will happen is that a bunch of good folks who could be doing some good for the country will be sitting on the sidelines, marginalized for the foreseeable future.
I don’t look forward to that or want it to happen. But it is what it is.
Turning this moment in history into Apocalype Now is hardly helpful. Politics ebbs and flows. We are in a moment now much like after WWII. The Republican Party faithful didn’t much like Ike and he certainly did not like him. But he was the man for mopping up the war and leading the nation through the post-war period, and they went for it. History matters, and it’s quite short-sighted not to see all that is at stake in this moment in history.
You admit that one of the two major party candidates will win the general election. If that choice is a choice between "two evils," do you dispute that it is fundamentally impossible for one evil to not be worse, or potentially worse, than the other? That being the case, how do you find it moral to do nothing to stop the greater of the two evils being visited upon the nation?
I fully realize that the next president will come from one of the two main parties, but I will be making my choice and will not be "throwing away" my vote if I choose not to vote for either of the major party's' nominees and instead vote for the candidate who best represents my views, beliefs, and hopes for America's future generations.
I hear your passion for our country, but, again, you admit that the next president will represent one of the two major political parties. How, then, can you conclude that voting for a third party is not a political futile act? Moreover, how, then, can you avoid personal responsibility for engaging in a futile act rather than in an effective act?
I have always been under the impression that the right to vote meant that I can choose who to vote for based on which candidate I believe to be the best man or woman for the office in question. Have I been misled, and if so, am I being unAmerican or unpatriotic by choosing to vote my conscience rather than my pocketbook or my party loyalty? If I follow the crowd and vote for my party's unworthy nominee because I know that the worthy candidate who best represents my ideals and beliefs has no chance of being elected, doesn't that make me nothing more than a sheeplike crowd follower?
I appreciate your eloquence, but this is politics, not poetry. Not even prose. Grubby, realistic politics.
I say of course vote your conscience, but on what should your conscience be focused? What is the task at hand? It is making a choice between two alternatives that were not of your own making, as neither you nor I can control who the parties nominate. And it is a choice as to who is going to be the Commander in Chief and the Leader of the Free World, and, more importantly, a choice as to which party---and their general worldviews---will be elevated to power.
The only way your conscience can be clear is (1) you do all you can to effectively stop the greater of two evils, or (2) you delude yourself that it is moral act to do a futile act when you had the opportunity to do an effective act.
You are not a "sheeplike crowd follower" because you step up to the plate and take the pitch, whatever it is. You are not a "sheeplike crowd follower" because you keep fighting, even up to Election Day, even up to holding your nose mightily, to get the best for the nation between whatever alternatives you're presented with.
Too often "voting one's conscience" really comes down to voting for someone that the voter "feels good" about voting for. But it's not about feeling good. It's about doing the best you can, given the two effective choices you have, for the country.
OH, really. When was that?
What on Earth took Dobson so long to wake up to Rudy’s abortion express?
“..The Far Right and the Far Left both need to realize they are never going to get exactly what they want in the White House. ..”
We know that we can’t get exactly what we want (even President Reagan wasn’t perfect, but he was close), but we don’t want a president who after over 46 million innocent unborn babies have been killed, wants abortion to remain legal, and wants we the tax payers to have to pay for abortions for poor people, when it is against our conscience.
“I do have my favorite - Duncan Hunter, however I can vote for any of the others. except Rudy ..”
You sound like me.
Anybody but Rudy.
Dear wouldntbprudent; you have a lot of catching up to do.
FYI; GrandEagle is correct in stating there is no substantial difference. This can be shown by simply looking at the people the POTUS has chosen for his cabinet, and lo and behold; they are all the same kind: Globalists. One-worlders. Socialists. Promoters of "democracy" all over the world. Very eager to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, all the while working to flush our own country.
Doesn't matter which "flavor" the POTUS, they always promote the same kind of folks to powerful positions.
Is there a way out of this mess? Yes. We need to educate ourselves, then others, and hopefully find conservative candidates we can support. Then get others who are like-minded to help us support them.
Not Rudy McRomney.
Furthermore, your tactic of voting for the least harmful candidate, and "planning the next revolution" will not work for the simple reason that when liberal Republicans gain power, it breeds more liberal Republicans.
Too many people such as yourself are getting their "education" from the MSM.
They could try listening to their base.
However, seeing as how they are hell-bent on self-immolation, they don't need to.
I could engage your points,and will if you like, but I notice that you simply repeat the *conclusion* that "there is no substantial difference" between the administrations of the two major political parties.
Is there a reason you and everyone else stating that *conclusion* decline to give even one specific example?
I asked, and quite politely, if those with this view would at least hazard a guess as to the type of person who would be Secretary of Defense and head of Homeland Security in a Rat administration compared to in a Republican administration.
I know we can't predict specific names, but we know enough about each party to know the type of person they would gravitate to for these positions.
Yet, instead of answering my question, you pronounce I am ignorant and uneducated and start a sentence with the ever-impressive "FYI." Okay, where is the information, please?
You have stated nothing but tautologies. Duh. "There's no difference because there's no difference."
I'm more than willing to learn from you, but for that to happen you must back up your stance with examples.
I have given examples, here and on the quiz thread. Why won't you?
Why won't anyone who slaps down the *conclusion* that it won't make a whit of difference to the country whether the Rats or the Republicans are handed power in 2008?
Any guesses?
Could you at least tell me if you dispute the examples I have given?
How is it that you believe that the millions of people voting in the Republican primaries are mere puppets of some boogeyman "They"?
"They" are hell-bent on self-immolation. "They" [think they] don't need to listen to their base.
Are you a RNC-mind-numbed robot? I didn't think so. And neither am I.
So, if a candidate to your liking is not nominated, would that be the result of the RNC exercising telepathic control over millions of voters or would it be the result of millions of voters simply disagreeing with your views, for whatever reason?
Why is it someone else's fault (sound familiar?) that the base has been unable to galvanize voters to a particular candidate (though the base has yet to galvanize itself around any one candidate)?
You say the Party should "try listening to their base." Okay, what would the party hear?
First, name the name of the candidate the base is unified behind---please!
Then, tell me the base's plan for getting that guy elected---does the base believe that the RNC has some pixie dust it can sprinkle on masses of voters to make them like the base's candidate (assuming the base unifies around a candidate)?
Is the RNC that powerful that, if it just would "listen" to the base and then support the candidate the base wants, that candidate, first, would get the nomination and then, second, would win the presidency? Do you honestly go through life believing the RNC is powerful enough to "make" anyone president?
If you concede that the RNC is only one player in a complex game, then how do you claim it matters at all whether the "Party" listens to the base?
What matters is whether voters---first, within the party, then, secondly, within the general electorate---listen to the base.
Go for it!
But if we haven't completed this process by 2008, tell me why it's okay to facilitate handing the country over to the Rats.
His actions as governor of Massachusetts defy that promise, if he made it.
You’re putting forth this argument against Romney in order to support a candidate who falls under the same conditions?
Same thing.
BTW; this is something you have to find out for yourself. I did over 14 years ago. Been studying this ever since. There's not way I could give you a three-paragraph thumbnail sketch.
You don't even have the proper frame of mind (open) to accept it anyway. When you have decided you want to learn, you will find it.
Once again, a completely irrelevant post.
If this were a courtroom, your answer would be struck for being “nonresponsive.”
Oh, and you’re a mindreader as well. Cool beans! You state you know I don’t have “the proper frame of mind (open) to accept it anyway,” and use your mindreading as an excuse to not even begin to answer basic questions and to avoid debate on conclusions you yourself stated.
You stated that there would be no difference between a Rat administration and a Republican administration. I asked you to back that up with some examples. You have refused.
Why?
You may be unwilling to debate me, but why not give the benefit of your insight to others who are thoughtfully reading this thread?
No one asked you for a three-paragraph thumbnail sketch of whatever it is that you have been pondering for the last 14 years. I asked you to name names and you refused. Why?
In case you haven't been paying attention (you haven't), the republican base is not unified behind one candidate.
Even reading on Free Republic I can infer that.
I do however think the conservatives are not in favor of a RINO, but how is it that at least three of them are being promoted as the top choices? Why do we not hear of the RNC leadership swatting them down?
Why hasn't the RNC voiced any opinion against liberal Republicans?
Sure looks as if the RNC is doing everything they possibly can to alienate the conservatives in this country. Maybe they don't need us?
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.