Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/08/2007 5:17:34 PM PDT by monomaniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
To: monomaniac
what is this, a loss-leader to boost their credibility?

New York Times Poll: most people fall down, not up.

2 posted on 10/08/2007 5:19:04 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (are you looking at me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac
Why do we only hear about evangelical Christians when it is an issue that threatens to split them?

I am waiting for the article from anti war Cindy Sheehan types about it they can put their core issue aside and vote for Hillary.

It is amazing how the MSM is all of a sudden concerned about our morals. BTW.. This is one Christian who will vote for who ever the eventual nominee is.

3 posted on 10/08/2007 5:23:20 PM PDT by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac
The only surprise is that the number is but 60%.

Evangelicals are principled and will vote their principles, no matter what.

That's why they are not reliable PARTY voters. Never have been, never will be. They can and will vote dem (did in the 06 elections...dims who opposed abortion and gay marriage did very well with evangelicals), GOP or 3rd party if necessary.

However, it IS possible for the GOP to form a new majority. This can be done IF the evangelicals start their own, 3rd party right away. If they don't, the GOP will lose and lose big time in 08. It'll be the congressional mid-terms before any comeback can begin.

By then the fairness doctrine and federal funding of all elections will be in place. Of course, the govt will only fund those candidates who are "mainstream".

4 posted on 10/08/2007 5:24:01 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac
Bad choice. Not voting, or voting a third party candidate only helps the opposition. And if they think someone who differs with them on a few points isn’t better than someone who not only differs with them on every point but hates them too is not good stewardship of their vote.

It would be different if every time someone didn’t vote as a protest they took a vote away from the other side, but that’s not how it works. Failing to vote, or voting for a third party candidate is tantamount to voting for the other person. Every time I say this I get heat from those who try to explain how it’s not so, but I am not not convinced by their arguments.

No matter how much you disagree with Rudy if he’s the candidate of the party and you sit out the vote, or vote for a third party candidate, knowing full well he or she can’t win you are in essence casting a vote for the opposition.

5 posted on 10/08/2007 5:24:57 PM PDT by jwparkerjr (Sigh . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac

The sanctity of human life is the genesis of “Christian involvement in politics.”

One can’t underestimate the seriousness of the issue to those who are deeply committed.

People who call themsleves “evangelical” or “Christian” can drift whatever way the wind blows, but for those of us including myself the “life” issue stands out.

Politicians know how to say what we want to hear, but actions are going to make the difference in the end.

How Roberts and Alito vote on the Supreme Court will say a lot about if this involvement in politics has meant any tangible results.


6 posted on 10/08/2007 5:25:19 PM PDT by Nextrush (Proudly uncommitted in the 2008 race for president for now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac
Sorry, I am very pro-life and think highly of Dr. Dobson.

That being said, if he continues with this insanity, he will surely get a true nightmare for president, one that will hand him his worst fears (3 more Ruth Ginsburgs?). In this regard, he should keep his powder dry rather than paint himself and others in a corner so soon.

7 posted on 10/08/2007 5:26:36 PM PDT by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac
MSM strategy:

Divide and conquer.

It's that simple and they think nobody sees through it.

8 posted on 10/08/2007 5:27:13 PM PDT by capt. norm (Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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

I actually plan to vote for someone who is diametrically opposed to my values so I can prove the NYT's wrong

" rolling eyes "

10 posted on 10/08/2007 5:31:48 PM PDT by Popman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac
This is stupid, stupid politics by Dobson, almost breathtakingly childish and naive. Now don't get me wrong, I have my pet issues as well - gay marraige is an abomination and I have trouble with 2 of the candidates with their liberal past on it.

However, I do understand that the only realiable thing I will get if I vote 3rd party is Hillary elected and Ruth Bader Ginsberg redux. But I get a Republican elected, at least I will get a seat at the table.

Harriet Miers is a great example of where conservatives had a say in the process and won out. Hillary will have no reservations about sending a modern day Roland Frieseler to the Supreme Court.

11 posted on 10/08/2007 5:38:52 PM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac

I’m glad to see Dobson and the evangelical wing vetting Fred as a candidate. After what we went through here on FR when we filtered out tootyfruityRudy, we couldn’t afford an internecine war of social conservatives over Fred.

We’re in the same boat we all were when aRINOld jumped into the Kahleefornya race for guvernator. The solid, colorless social conservative, Tom McClintock had enough poll numbers and weight to win the race but the republican party abandoned him. And look what that got us in the sunshine state. So if we go for the electable name-recognition candidate, don’t be surprised if we end up with a wish-washy center-left presidency.


12 posted on 10/08/2007 5:38:58 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac

With all due respect to Evangelicals...

If they keep going on like that, they’ll bring us president Hillary(TM).

*donning holy-water-enhanced fire-retardant suit*


13 posted on 10/08/2007 5:39:29 PM PDT by El Conservador ("Liberalism is the application of childish emotion to complex issues." - MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac

Pharisees killed Jesus. The NYTimes remind me of pharisical “group think” process. I would tell them that they should be ashamed of themselves.But they won’t.
I am an evangelical Christian, and a Pastor, and I won’t vote a third party at this critical juncture of the history of the Republic.
I guess if Dobson wants a Hillary Presidency he is likely to get it. He will have to live with two or three Supreme court justices who might be around for 30 years who not only will affirm Wade, but strengthen it.
Does that mean he should abandon his principle? Nope. Jesus said to give to Rome the things that belong to Rome and the things to God that belong to him. You sometimes have look at the broader wide scope. There is a theological term for it...”the teliological suspension of the ethical” it means for the greater good of society you temporarily change a course for the benefit of the society. The best known example of this was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was a Biblical pacifist who left the security of teaching in New York to go back to his native Germany where he became involved in a plot to kill Hitler. He failed. Was arrested and was hung by the gestapo six weeks before the allies liberated his camp.


15 posted on 10/08/2007 5:40:52 PM PDT by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac

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

in other words they will only support a conservative candidate unless he actually has a chance of winning.


17 posted on 10/08/2007 5:50:38 PM PDT by ari-freedom (I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac

Look for the slimes to run positive Christian unifying stories if Rudy gets the nomination.


21 posted on 10/08/2007 5:57:30 PM PDT by Archon of the East (Universal Executive Power of the Law of Nature)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac

What I don’t understand is this: Dobson is against Guiliani, against Thompson, I’m assuming against Romney? Who is he for???? It seems he’s left himself no option but a third party candidate because he’s already dismissed the top tier as unsuitable.


22 posted on 10/08/2007 5:57:46 PM PDT by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac
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.

He's a damn fool. Based on his recent pronouncements, he wouldn't have supported Reagan because he had been divorced.

It's time to stop listening to preachers and acting like independent, free-thinking conservatives.

As the Gipper once said, if we agree on 80% of the issues, we are united.

29 posted on 10/08/2007 6:05:18 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac
Evangelicals need to go back and read about all the imperfect people that became God's greatest servants: Moses was a murder, David was an adulterer and murderer, Mary Magdalene an adultress, etc., etc.,

I don't want Rudy as the nominee either but I'm pragmatic enough to vote for him rather than let 'She Who Must Not be Named' win.

32 posted on 10/08/2007 6:06:26 PM PDT by Mogollon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac
Liberals have no problem accepting incremental change. They will even accept short term set backs in the interest of achieving overall success. Conservative evangelicals cannot do this.

This will ultimately be their undoing. Many place their hopes in political institutions rather than God. They are engaged in politics which invariably involves compromise and negotiations. If one's principles trump one's politics, you will be frustrated in success and frustrated by defeat.

If one wants to play the political game, one has to play by political rules. You have to WIN elections to have a place at the table. If you consistently lose and maintain your principles you have nothing and will get nothing out of the political game. You become irrelevant.

Dobson and other evangelical who bolt and cause the GOP to lose will become less not more relevant.

33 posted on 10/08/2007 6:08:26 PM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac

Dobson on Hannity tonight....Hannity trying to convince Dobson is A OK. LMAO. Not happening Sean.


34 posted on 10/08/2007 6:10:28 PM PDT by Kimberly GG (Support Duncan Hunter in YOUR State....http://duncanhunter.meetup.com/1/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: monomaniac

Are we now trusting the NYT to define an “evangelical?”

Basically, they take those who agree with Dobson, and say they are “evangelicals.” The rest of us don’t qualify.


41 posted on 10/08/2007 6:13:11 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson