Posted on 10/15/2007 7:56:21 AM PDT by BigAlPro
James Dobson is a courageous leader and a battle-scarred warrior. He has gone head to head with the best of them and has done a wonderful job of defending Christian values in the political arena. He has earned our respect and deserves our prayers.
However, just as John Kerry's war record didn't make him a good president, Jim Dobson's record does not make him right about the 2008 presidential race.
Dobson has allowed his pride to cause him to publicly vow "never for the rest of my life to vote for anyone who would kill innocent babies." Making this a personal vow is not the problem. The problem is that he has tied his position to the front-runners for the 2008 presidential election and is publicly encouraging millions to follow his lead. If that happens, Hillary Clinton will most certainly be the next president.
According to most major polls, if the general election were held today, Rudy Giuliani would face Hillary Clinton for president. If this scenario becomes a reality, pro-lifers will be forced to choose which pro-choice candidate would be the best of the two to defend the sanctity of life. According to the Dobson plan, pro-lifers should not vote for either candidate.
Promoting our values can never be accomplished by refusing to vote. A non-vote for Rudy would be the same as casting two votes for Hillary.
American citizens not only have the right to vote, but the responsibility to vote. We have a duty to ourselves, our children and our country to make sure that the best candidates are elected. We never have the luxury of having "ideal candidates," who meet 100 percent of our expectations. In every election, we must choose the best person for the job, from the field of available candidates.
There are also times where we may have to set aside our pride in order to make sure the wrong person does not get elected. The 2008 election could present such an opportunity for the pro-life citizens of this country.
If Dobson wants to take a biblical approach to this situation, he should go back and study the books of Daniel and Esther in the Old Testament.
Daniel was taken captive to Babylon and forced into slavery as an assistant to some very evil kings. He did not refuse to work for them because their pagan practices clashed with his religion. Instead, Daniel held true to his faith and honored God as he worked directly with and for the evil kings.
Esther was chosen to be the queen of a pagan king. She could have gone out of her way to avoid selection, but instead, she gave her best for the sake of her Lord. In doing so, God used her to save his people from complete annihilation by having her convince the pagan king to change his position.
Neither of these Old Testament heroes wanted the task appointed them. Surely they would have preferred to remain with other godly people. However, when the time came, they did what they had to do for the sake of God's plan.
If God gives us a choice between candidates A and B, we do not have the option of choosing D, none of the above.
I would never vote for Rudy, or any other pro-choice candidate, in a primary election. However, once the lots have been cast and I am forced to choose between bad or worse, I will prayerfully make the godly choice.
Dobson's Option C is the promotion of a conservative third-party candidate. Unfortunately, there is not enough time to establish a viable third-party candidate for the 2008 election. First, we need to keep Hillary from becoming president. Then Dobson and company can focus on building a third party.
The solution to the Dobson problem is simple. Americans need to make sure that we don't have two pro-choice candidates on the presidential ballot next November. That battle can only be won in the primaries.
97%?!?!?
You failed math, didn’t you? Or did you first hear the name Rudy Giuliani yesterday?
This is a good article. I personally have been influenced by it. Thank you for posting.
hopefully it won’t come to this (Hillary vs. Rudy) but this article does make a could point about how you can/should still vote for the lesser of 2 evils.
I would love to respond. If I knew what you were talking about.
As we all know, Fred is in favor of turning it back to the states.
And that's the problem with many conservatives...they too prefer to ignore the constitution in favor of pushing their views on the masses at the federal level.
Turning it back to the states is a possible step forward. A nation-wide ban is NOT going to happen.
You don’t understand. Its all or nothing. Unless we get everything we get Hillary.
As stated in the article, the answer lies in the Primary. Pro-lifers have to make sure Rudy is not the GOP candidate in 2008.
If you only have 1 issue that you vote for and that’s the only thing you care about then yes stay home. BUT if there are other issues you care about then you should still vote.
But even then I’d bet Rudy’s judges wouldn’t be as bad as Hillary’s. So by not voting you are giving abortion rights advocates a leg up.
There is a time for teaching your party lessons, and a time for going with the nominated primary candidate. Next year will be a watershed year - Republicans can choose to teach their party a lesson (again) and risk putting our military staff, our free internet, our basic values at terrible risk of another Clinton presidency, or we can go ahead and be united in our vote against a democrat during wartime and work for the future to raise up a viable candidate for 2012...
I think I understand your point.
But you see, you still haven’t answered my questions.
So far, nobody has.
Michigan voters decided to teach the Republicans a lesson and now they are paying for it in more ways than one. Unfortunately, it will be a long, painful and expensive lesson.
Amen. I am sick of every election being a litmus test on choice. Abortion is legal—does not make it right but legal. People like Dobson need to get off their high horse and work to change people’s feelings on abortion by preaching, running pro-life commericals,etc.
People like Dobson would force his beliefs on everyone if they got the power. No dancing, no drinking, no smoking, no birth control for women, etc.
I am against abortion, but it is a personal choice not the law of some intolerant law.
Hmmm...kind of tough to answer that though. As all elections have another person running (at least in the Pres. election). So if the choice is between less evil vs. more evil...I guess I'll vote less evil.
Let's take abortion since it's the topic at hand. If Rudy wanted to increase abortions and thought it was the best way to improve the lot of poor people. And Hillary just wanted to leave it as an option but would fund programs to help reduce the amount of them...then yes I'd stay home. The reason being i that the guy I agree with on most issues is more wrong on the most important issue. but if he's got the same view as Hillary or a little bit less extreme view...then I'd still vote for him.
This third party stuff is a big fat straw man. Dobson isn’t promoting a third party. He just said he PERSONALLY will either not vote or vote for a third party if any of the current candidates are nominated. Maybe I missed it. Is Christian Conservative of any national stature trying to start a third party?
Which is crazy because most social conservatives are economic conservatives and opposed all the spending the Republicans were doing.
What these fiscal conservatives, apparently, are too stupid realize is that Giuliani isn't on their side. He is a liberal, period. Social liberal Republicans almost always end up being fiscal liberals when reach office. And, Giuliani has a track record of huge spending and opposition to the Presidential line item veto while in New York.
Alienating any faction of the Republican base is disaster. But, alienating virtually the entire base over several years is the surest way to have a Watergate-like meltdown.
I meant - Is ANY Conservative Christian with any national stature trying to start a third party?
If you don’t vote D or R, whoever you vote for is third party. is it not? I didn’t say Dobson wanted to start a third party.
I do understand that reasoning, but it still isn’t my point. So I guess I have to get hypothetical. Note: these aren’t asked pugnaciously, I really am going somewhere with it.
So, if both candidates favored legalizing rape, you’d vote for the GOP candidate?
If both favored legalizing child molestation, you’d vote for the GOP candidate?
If both favored giving all power to the imams in Iran, you’d vote for the GOP candidate?
Get the feds out of our daily life. Let me choose a state than I'm comfortable with and live with the consequences. Many people are liberal locally but conservative at a federal level. They don't mind paying taxes if it helps improve their roads, schools, crime rate...but paying it to help California deal with their liberal policies on illegal immigrants rubs most conservatives raw.
the only way to fix this is to send this garbage back to the states. We need to change the mindset...the battle should not be at the federal level to shove your ideas down your neighbor's throat...that's what local/state politics are for.
Why would you think turning the party over to a liberal Republican like Schwarzenegger (which Giuliani is) would be better than turning over to a Democrat?
It would be worse, guaranteeing eight years without a conservative in the White House and guaranteeing no chance of the GOP regaining Congress.
As proven by Schwarzenegger, the same liberal legislation ends up getting passed when a liberal Republican is in office. In fact, at a national level, it is easier for a liberal Republican than liberal Democrat to pass such legislation.
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.