Skip to comments.The Values Test [Dobson Will Back Third-Party if Giuliani is Nominated]
Posted on 10/04/2007 10:19:26 PM PDT by Soft Bigotry
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.
Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Then get behind Fred! Jeezz guys, it’s not like Rudy is the only guy on the ticket.
Didn’t he already meet with Fred?
Besides, I think he’s addressing a what-if scenario here.
If he backs any candidate other than a Republican he will be pulling a Ross Perot and giving the election to Hillary Clinton.
A deal will be cut giving Dobson oval office access and veto power when it comes to future Sup Ct nominations. In other news, Islam continues it’s march...
I guess he wants 3 more liberals on the SC.
There has been a slew of articles proclaimimg evangelical dissatisfaction and the threat of defection. I would rather see them standing behind a candidate than threatening what if scenarios.
Hell, if Rudy gets the nod, I think I'll write in Fred/Hunter.
Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter or Duncan Hunter/Fred Thompson would be an excellent ticket!!
I agree with Dobson that we shouldn’t put electability calculations above principle. I support Thompson because I believe he’s the best candidate in the race — although I think he is electable, I would support him even if he were in the second tier.
we Christians are becoming the wimpiest bunch of whiners.....we don't get our way we would rather have the whole entire country ruined and infiltrated and controlled by Satanist then to either shut the heck up or support the most reasonable, conservative, rational, logical and respected person out there and that is not the Hitler.....
I wonder if Dobson isn’t testing his own political power here;
maybe he wants to run at the top of the ticket of this third party?
How you can call yourself a Christian and then proclaim you would be willing to vote for Rudy is beyond me.
Any candidate that believes it is a woman’s right to choose to murder her unborn child, as Rudy does, is not fit to be a leader or a softball team, much less the leader of the US.
As a Christian, your moral principles are supposed to be your first priority even to the death. Otherwise, you are definitely not living a Christ-like life.
You might want to rethink either your proclamation of being a Christian, or your political position.
IMO, the only way we can lose the election in ‘08 is due to single issue voters not getting what they want. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Dobson says Thompson ‘not for me’
This single issue WOT voters who will sell out all their other principles to elect someone, Rudy, who will destroy the Republican party for generations to come.
The same Rudy who is wrong on:
2. Homosexual Agenda
4. Gun Rights
5. Week on fiscal issues and Federalism
I know that is not what you meant, however, it is the reality of the situation and most people on this site are really, REALLY tired of people misrepresenting both Rudy and principled conservatives.
Try to stay on point.
You said they had met.
Fred says they have not.
I don’t care what Dobson has to say if he can’t even have the decency to sit down and talk to the man before he starts making statements like this.
It lacks a certain Christ-like quality.
Relax; I asked if they had met/talked, I didn’t say I knew for sure.
see my post #15.
Look, I’m completely against abortion too but there is no way that I would let that be a deal breaker in voting for the Republican nominee if it turns out to be Rudy. I wonder if people here realize that our current president is against abortion yet that fact has done nothing to make it illegal. In an election as important as this one you would think that people would look at the big picture vis-a-vie what would happen if the White House is won by the Communists.
No, if the republicans nominate a social liberal (Rudy), THEY will be handing it to Clinton...
He certainly is. He knows once a candidate wins the nomination his bargaining power signicantly diminishes. Now is the time for private closed door promises and concessions. Its how the game has always been played.
“most reasonable, conservative, rational, logical and respected person out there”
And that wouldn’t be Rudy either...
Where in the Constitution is it mentioned that to be President you must be a Christian?
Or do you always do your shopping in Christian stores??
What kind of car do you drive, and who is the manufacturer of your TV, radios, cell phones, etc., etc.???
“Dobson Will Back Third-Party if Giuliani is Nominated”
So will me and enough Christian voters to affect the GOP’s chances. We simply cannot vote for a pro-abort liberal. Heck folks, that is WHY we are Republicans.
If the nominees are Rudy and Hillary, and you think that Hillary won’t do far greater damage to the country than Rudy could ever do than that’s your prerogative. Because, in reality, voting for a third party will do nothing more than split the Republican vote and literally hand the White House to Hillary on a silver platter. Now which would you rather have if that’s what it came down to?
When Rudy himself says his policies are the same as Clintons, then what is the point?
By nominating Rudy, you will cause at least a third of the party on principle alone to either sit out the General Election or go third-party because he is wrong on all the issues important to principled conservatives except the WOT. He is no better on the WOT than the other candidates.
And by the way, we conservatives are looking at the big picture. We are not just worried about this election, but the following elections that will not be won by Republicans if they nominate Rudy because they will have lost the trust and respect of their most committed members.
It those who keep pushing Rudy who are myopic.
Do everyone a favor and quit pushing the Loser!
I think a liberal republican would do far more damage. He’d get more left wing legislation passed.
I didn’t say anything about nominating him. I’m talking about IF he gets nominated. The only way we will win the election and prevent the Clinton’s from waltzing right back into the White House is if we all get behind whomever the Republican nominee happens to be. If it is Rudy then you better believe that I will be voting for him. If it is Thompson, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, etc. I will be doing the same.
There’s not much I wouldn’t do to keep Hillary out of the White House.
Rudy’s not my first choice, but I’ll vote for him. First thing Hillary will do is run to find another Ruth Bader Ginsberg. That chills my blood.
I am not pushing anyone here. I am only stating that come November 2008 that I will be voting for the Republican nominee for President.
Indeed... I’ve been saying this for months. Hillary may very well be the toughest with the WOT. She’s going to want to prove she has testicles... She may even overreact.
So will me and enough Christian voters to affect the GOPs chances. We simply cannot vote for a pro-abort liberal. Heck folks, that is WHY we are Republicans.
So, I guess you intend to help Hillary, who is pro choice, win the election by voting for a third party just to make sure that Giuliani is not elected. That is totally illogical!
We don't like Giulliani, would prefer Hunter or Thompson but would NEVER vote for a third party thereby giving the election to the De-MARX-o-crats.
If my choice is between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani, I’m voting Guiliani. I’m not going to sit out the election because that’s effectively a vote for Hillary Clinton - it’s pointless to pretend otherwise. James Dobson’s opinions mean nothing to me.
Exactly - the Congress will more than likely stay Democrat, so we can either try to put someone in the White House to stand in their way or give up entirely.
If you subscribe to “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me,” you’ll get left behind entirely, and take the country with you.
Last thing we need is our own Nader siphoning off votes and losing it for us.
I understand the why for this but don’t think a 3rd party can win right now. I’m pro life and it kills me how so many, especially those in the repub party don’t place a value on human life (abortion isn’t so bad, personally against it but it’s a woman’s choice, etc.). I’m a social conservative through and through but my main concern is the WOT right now and we need someone, anyone, who supports our troops completely, supports this war and understands its importance, and won’t suck up to the liberals or extremists in this country who seem to control the media.
The majority of voters in this country don’t understand a damn thing about this country, history, politics, etc. IMO the most important thing, above anything else in this election, is to make sure Hillary, Obama, Edwards don’t become POTUS. All of our social conservative ideas won’t stand a chance with a dem president. We need a president who supports the military and its mission now more than ever and we won’t have that with a dem president. We need a president who won’t crumble to the MSM and other leftist, extremist factions.
I really don’t care *who* whatever group supports and come primary election time, I’m going to vote my conscience and come general election time, I’m going to vote for whomever is the repub nominee and pray that person can win against the dem. I will not vote 3rd party now because I know the majority of the country, the majority of repubs, conservatives aren’t savvy to all that’s happening. My greatest fear is we will have a dem president during these times because at least with a repub, we have a shot of surviving as a country/people. And the repub party is so split now while the dem party, the people who vote dem, don’t consider issues and go with the who will win. It’s disgusting imo that my party is so fractured. Maybe we deserve to lose until people wake up. However, I’m not willing to chance it now with this election. I want change. I’m just not willing to sell out this country to get that change this election year. It’s too close to the election for this kind of change imo. Every conservative/repub needs to vote for whomever is the repub nominee. At least we then have a chance. This whole * I won’t vote for whomever to make a freakin, useless point* is stupid imo. We’re selling oursevles and this country out to the leftists, nutcases by doing that.
I have no idea who I’m voting for yet in the primary but I do know who I won’t vote for. I also know that I will vote for whomever is the repub nominee, like it or not, and then work for change. The repub party is so fractured now and it does none of us social conservatives any good and gives a huge advantage to the dems.
Some people actually care about issues they believe rather than worshiping at the altar of the Republican party.
Others realize that electing a liberal Republican causes far more damage than a liberal Democrat and don't want a scenario where both parties are left-of-center.
If you think that, you really need to examine Rudy’s foreign policy views versus Hillary’s. The real world doesn’t agree with your views.
Really? What's the thinking there?
Dobson is being too much of a purist if supporting a 3rd party....remember Ross Perot in the ‘92 elections gave us Bill Clinton. A little history lesson here is in order. GOP may not have the most stellar candidates for Dobson but better stay with it to help keep out the HildeBeast Reich.
And we all know how imp’t SC is. Say what you want about Bush and all his screw ups but he did give us a conservative SC. And that’s important.
Then, you're stating you'd rather be stuck without a chance at conservative President for eight years and are willing to see the Republicans lose considerably more seats in Congress and become an entrenched minority for, likely, a decade.
I'd much rather see Hillary in the White House and have a very real chance of Republicans regaining a majority in Congress, possibly by 2010 and a conservative President by 2012.
It's a no-brainer. Giuliani does more damage to conservatism than Hillary and would have a much better chance of getting liberal legislation passed.
Rudy is not going to come close to winning the nomination, so this is a moot issue.
We’re joining the whining, self pitying that’s so prevalent in the liberal/dem/socialist party. Disgusting and astounding imo.
[W]hats important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court, he said. Justice Ginsburg fit that category.
-- Rudolph Giuliani, July, 2005.
The good Rev. Dobson should ask himself a question: Why would the anti-life New York Times want me to write an op-ed for them?
Who really cares what “Side-show Dobson” has to say? Perhaps he can whip up a batch of purple koolaid for his trained monkeys.
2) The party in the White House loses seats in Congress. Giuliani will further entrench the Republicans as a minority in Congress and likely drive southern conservatives and pro-life Catholics back to the Democratic party. A Hillary Presidency will almost surely result in massive Republican gains in Congress and, possibly, set the stage for Republican control and another Republican revolution.