New York Times Poll: Evangelicals Agree with Dr. Dobson

CitizenLink.com ^ | 10-8-2007 | Jennifer Mesko

[monomaniac]

New York Times Poll: Evangelicals Agree with Dr. Dobson

by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor

Majority only will support a presidential candidate who shares their values.

A New York Times/CBS News poll shows white, evangelical Republicans agree with Dr. James Dobson.

Nearly 60 percent of those who plan to vote in the primaries said they could not support a candidate they didn't agree with on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Eighty-six percent said presidential candidates should be judged on both their political record and their personal life.

Dr. Dobson has taken a beating in the media for promising to vote only for a candidate who shares his basic values, even if that means supporting a third-party candidate.

Last week, he wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times to clarify his position: "Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed."

Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, a Texas-based group that has a network of 5,000 pastors willing to mobilize their churches to vote, said evangelicals are not bluffing.

“I am not going to cast a sacred vote granted to me by the blood of millions of God-fearing Americans who died on the fields of battle for freedom, for a candidate who says it’s OK to kill the unborn,” he told The Times. “I just can’t.”

WATCH DR. DOBSON ON TV
Dr. James Dobson will be a guest on Hannity & Colmes on the Fox News Channel tonight at 9 ET. The program re-airs at midnight ET. He will offer his views, as a private citizen, on the 2008 presidential election.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Read Dr. Dobson's op-ed that ran in The New York Times last week.

[roamer_1]

I am casting my vote for a commander in chief, not a pastor. Both have their useful roles but I will not confuse the two.

Neither need they be mutually exclusive. The most qualified candidate would be qualified as both a Christian and a Commander in Chief (and he is).

[jwparkerjr]

I am VERY worried about that. It’s my fear that the MSM is pushing his candidacy because they have dirt on him not yet revealed, being held until we’ve passed the point of no return and made him our candidate.

We need to work has hard as we can to find a candidate that won’t have that problem. Of course there are no guarantees in this game and even Fred Thompson could turn out to have a skeleton or two in the closet. Hillary’s closet is full of skeletons but that’s never going to matter since she’s the darling of the press and the left.

[RachelFaith]

I agree with him...

[jwparkerjr]

You are 100% correct! The answer is to not nominate Rudy, and I certainly plan to do what I can to see to it that he’w not the nominee. But if he is, he’s better than Hillary.

We know what kind of judges she would nominate and we know what kind of laws she wants. She’s a sure bet for the things we don’t want to have happen to our country. Even if Rudy is the lesser of two evils at least there’s a chance he would be better than Hillary in many areas.

Not a very encouraging thought is it? My prayer is that we will nominate someone else.

[Just A Nobody]

Is there a Republican that satisfies the Pro Life crowd, the NRA crowd, the lower my taxes crowd and the Stop Illegals crowd?

Yes!

And if there is, why isn't he running right now?

He is! Just because the enemedia will not acknowledge him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. See post #168 and check out this site as well.

More good reading:

What You Don’t Know About Duncan Hunter – Part 1

What You Don’t Know About Duncan Hunter – Part 2

[Eccl 10:2]

"If you, and I emphasize you, want to split the party and nominate Giuliani then it is you and no one else who will be splitting the party!"

You are putting the cart before the horse with your totally incorrect logic. Giuliani is probably last on my list of Republican candidates.

But if he is the nominee, then he will get my vote, and should get all of our votes as well. It is foolishness to think that splitting the Republican Party will do anything other than guarantee that we get four and likely eight more years of Bill and Hillary in the White House.

And that means, may I remind you, likely three or more Planned Parenthood-approved Supreme Court justices.

[dougd]

Dr. Dobson has taken a beating in the media for promising to vote only for a candidate who shares his basic values, even if that means supporting a third-party candidate

... problem is, he's going way beyond that ... he's saying he won't vote for someone who shares his basic values, but advocates a different way to achieve the shared goals.

[blaquebyrd]

"The answer is to not nominate Rudy, and I certainly plan to do what I can to see to it that he’w not the nominee. But if he is, he’s better than Hillary."

Why? The only difference is Rudy wears pumps and fishnet stockings. Is this the best guy we can find to be the torch bearer for the Republican party? Thompson, Hunter and Huckabee are vastly more conservative than the cross-dresser. Yet our party seems determined to make Rudy the poster child for conservatism. If Rudy is the best we can come up with we are in serious trouble. A Rudy presidency will turn back the clock on conservatism in America for decades.

[Grunthor]

Nearly 60 percent of those who plan to vote in the primaries said they could not support a candidate they didn’t agree with on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Eighty-six percent said presidential candidates should be judged on both their political record and their personal life.

---

I believe that this does not bode well for Rudy, Fred could be ok if he adequately explains his stance on the marriage issue.

[Grunthor]

“I am not going to cast a sacred vote granted to me by the blood of millions of God-fearing Americans who died on the fields of battle for freedom, for a candidate who says it’s OK to kill the unborn,”

And I don’t give a damn WHAT political party they belong to.

[the808bass]

The Christian movement needs someone who is more savy about the importance of political power struggles...he is a novice!

We (in the Christian movement) need people less "savvy" and more principled. Not vice versa.

[the808bass]

That’s fine, stand on principal and someone else will eat your lunch.

Bullcrap. Instead, why doesn't the Republican party nominate someone who stands on principle? Novel idea, I'm sure. I think it's a winner, however.

[Grunthor]

Do you think God wants 3 more Ruth Ginsburgs on the court so we can forget overturning Roe v Wade and try to overturn things such as partial birth abortion restrictions?

---

Do you really have any idea how frightening it would be if the intellect of the Creator of the universe was so small that one of us could figure out what he “wants?”

[Grunthor]

“I wonder how a guaranteed win for Hillary Clinton is serving God?”

You are correct. Lets not nominate a liberal and just avoid the whole idea.

[Grunthor]

You seem to be of the opinion that many of us “will not” vote for Rudy over the abortion issue.

I prefer to think of it as “cannot.”

[Prokopton]

... problem is, he's going way beyond that ... he's saying he won't vote for someone who shares his basic values, but advocates a different way to achieve the shared goals.

You're right. Dobson clearly has an agenda and I don't think it has anything to do with religion. I've always been skeptical of people who make a living off of religion treating it as a business. Dobson's no Mother Theresa, there's got to be something in it for him.

To come out and say that anyone is not a Christian without knowing anything about that person or without having even talked with them is something a person does to promote a personal agenda, something that has nothing to do with religious convictions. On Hanity, After telling us all how great he is, Dobson made it quite clear that there was still time for someone to supplicate themselves at his alter and thereby save us all from the evil liberals.

Dobson is a perfect example of self righteous religious pimps who are more interested in their own position than Gods directions. No wonder so many have turned away from religion altogether. Self righteous men like Dobson will have to answer for the discord they sow among the faithful. Hopefully, at that time, he will have learned a little humility.

[Kevmo]

Thanks for posting that. I am starting to think that the reason why Duncan Hunter is not getting traction is because so many republicans simply disagree with him. They tolerate him and say they’d vote for him if he won the nomination, but they won’t lift a finger for him because they do not agree and refuse to come clean on that. Historians are likely to look at this election as the watershed event that caused the social conservatives & social liberal/fiscal conservatives to split.

[Kevmo]

This was a third party threat.
***Maybe not. Maybe it was ironic foreshadowing for when Dobson endorses Duncan Hunter, like Ann Coulter does.

[Valin]

Just how does helping to defeat a republican candidate who has said any number of times he would nominate “strict constructionists” (Code word for pro life) judges to the Bench hurt the pro-life movement?

(followup question) Just how would helping put a democrat (who would nominate pro-choice judges to the bench help the pro-life movement?

Assuming Rudy wins the GOP nomination doing anything to get him defeated and putting any democrat in the WH (IMO) sets the pro-life movement back 10(?)-20(?) more years and cases the deaths of untold numbers of children.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles.

Good Lord! What a radical extremist!!! < /sarcasm>