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 ...
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.
If Rudy gets the nod, I’ll support him because I can see his good points and his record as mayor of NYC. He’s not my fav anymore, and he used to be before I found FR. He’s not a social conservative really but better him than Hillary or Obama or Edwards or any of the dem candidates. At least he won’t suck up to Islam and the religion of hate and will support our military. He may not even sell out our country if we keep on him. I voted for Bush and still like what he’s done in some areas but he lost me on this illegal immigration nonsense. At least Bush is fighting the WOT and gave us a conservative SC. That wouldn’t have happened if Gore or Kerry were POTUS. He sucks on border issues to say the least but again better than what we would have had if he weren’t POTUS.
You have to be kidding. You think that Hillary Clinton would be better than Rudy?
If Hillary gets elected it is the people who voted for her who get the credit. It is not the people who voted for another candidate who should be blamed. In the case of Ross Perot there is nothing that says that if Perot wasn’t running that all his votes would have gone Republican. That is only hypothetical thinking and to use that analogy is wrong.
It would not be possible to examine either of their views. Both are politicians and will say what ever their constituents wants to hear.
And, though I understand that YOU are THE world view, you need to rethink this...
Hillary doesn’t give a crap about what you or I think. She will be driven by the fact that if she can’t demonstrate that she can handle the role of Commander and Chief as the first female president in 200 + years, she will be the last one for the next 200 years.
Think about it...
The mainstream media wants a Rudy/Hillary race. That way, they get what they want no matter which one wins.
Simple. In one case we’re all together inside our fortified city, and the evil enemy we all recognize is outside the gates, ready to attack with her hordes. In the other case we’re all together inside our fortified city, and an evil enemy — supposedly one of our own that some mistakenly think is a friend — is within, organizing his supporters to come at us from behind as we focus on the enemy outside.
The real argument here is whether or not Giuliani is an enemy to our cause(s). I firmly believe that he is; I suspect that you feel differently. But if he is an enemy to our cause, it’s obvious that an enemy within is more dangerous than an enemy outside the gates — just as civil wars are much more more bloody and dangerous than even huge wars fought against outside forces.
So, we can agree to disagree.
Just don't complain when Hillary wins the election because so many voted for a third party candidate and you can be sure that those who voted third party would have voted Republican because they would be following Dobson's lead.
You are right of course. Rudy would be the worst possible president. Worse than a dem...
“.....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’m sorry, but you seem to be suggesting we don’t actually get to choose who we want to vote for. Is that an accurate assessment?