Posted on 10/10/2007 3:07:32 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Conservative evangelical leader Dr. James Dobson admits that a third-party plan supported by pro-family leaders might unintentionally help elect democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
The influential pro-family advocate still contends, however, that he would rather vote following his values than compromise and be forced to choose between two pro-choice candidates.
“We’re very, very concerned about the implications of a Hillary Clinton presidency, but you know, we have been working … for 35 years, I’ve been trying to defend the unborn child,” Dobson said on Fox’s Hannity & Colmes show Monday.
“That’s been my life. That’s been my belief, along with marriage and the family and the other things. I can’t now abandon that because we’ve got two bad choices here.”
Currently leading the Democratic race and Republican race are New York senator Hillary Clinton and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, respectively. Both have been criticized by conservatives for their pro-choice and pro-gay rights stances among other issues.
During a meeting in Salt Lake City, about 50 pro-family leaders decided they would consider backing a third-party candidate if the Republican Party chose a pro-choice nominee, such as Giuliani
In an Op-Ed in the New York Times last week, Dobson explained the coalition’s decision and the reasoning, stating that as “vitally important” as it is for the GOP to win the presidential election, it should not be won “at the expense of what we hold most dear.”
His announcement that a core Republican constituency could consider withdrawing their support from the party next year stirred controversy and created greater division in the already divided GOP.
“Why would we not support someone who does line up with our values system, when we would have to literally hold our noses to support somebody that contradicts those values?” Dobson posed to Hannity – who supports Giuliani despite agreeing with Dobson “99 percent” of the time.
When further pressed on the possibility that his third party plan could help Clinton, Dobson replied that the elections are still far away and elections are “very dynamic” and “volatile.”
“There’s still a possibility that one of those other candidates, a dark horse, could come from nowhere,” Dobson said.
As the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, Giuliani has repeatedly stated he can beat Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton – an appealing statement for those who see Clinton as a larger threat.
A recent Gallup Poll also found that the former New York City mayor had an overall favorable rating from churchgoing Protestants. Among the top tier Republican candidates, Giuliani was rated third by religious Protestants after former senator Fred Thompson and Arizona senator John McCain.
I reported the National Right to Life Committee's ratings accurately, as anyone can see by clicking on the link that I provided. Pro-life groups heavily dinged the records of those Senators who voted for the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold-Thompson CFR legislation as it severely damaged their efforts to promote the pro-life cause. If you remember the fight against CFR back then, the pro-life groups were some of the loudest voices opposing it.
People can disagree with the premiere pro-life group's ratings on the issue, but that's not really smart or honest. But no one can say that my numbers were inaccurate, dishonest, or anything like that. The ratings are the ratings, I provided the links, and my math is accurate.
The bottom line is that, as I claimed, people are incorrectly stating Fred Thompson's pro-life rating in the Senate as 100%. While Thompson is pro-life, he did not earn a 100% rating. Nor has he, might I add, received the endorsement of any pro-life organizations that I know of. Nor has he receive any pro-life awards from any such organizations. I never said that Thompson wasn't pro-life. I simply and quite accurately pointed out that the claims of a 100% pro-life record are untrue.
So which is it fraud or fool?
BIG, BIG mistake by Dobson. Not sure how he could sleep at night, knowing he opened the door for Hitlery.
I think this is all Satan’s working, in association with the pact that herself and Slick made with him. Watch how things unfold and you will see that there is an evil force at work here.
Respectfully disagree. I was talking about Dobson’s legacy, not the GOP. That is a separate thread.
Thanks for responding. I suppose Fred is a good pro-life candidate if we take the CFR thing off the table.
CFR legislation... severely damaged their efforts to promote the pro-life cause.
***I’ll keep that in mind, since Pro-Life is the most important platform to me. I didn’t pay CFR too much attention at the time. I’ll start looking into it as a sub-plank in the proLife cause. It’s a little bit like when rudybots claim that WOT is the overriding issue, but refuse to look at open borders as a security issue.
Absolutely.
She would polarize the country and its institutions. It would be a disaster.
Does James Dobson think the election of Hillary would hasten the coming of the Lord?
Absolutely.
She would polarize the country and its institutions. It would be a disaster.
Does James Dobson think the election of Hillary would hasten the coming of the Lord?
If we nominate a constitution trampling, gun grabbing, gay rights supporting abortionist for the presidency from the Republican party, then conservatism in the Republican party is dead. He will not be elected and the “conservative” Republican party defending the constitution, family values, life and liberty becomes a cruel joke.
Do you mean Zell Miller?
Good post!
[almost every conservative Christian agrees about is that we cannot allow Hillary Clinton to be the next President ]
Yes!!
“Wrong - in case you havent noticed, conservatives have become irrelavent.”
And some people on this board are PUSHING it. They not only expect us to grin and tolerate it, they expect us to help!! They see conservatives being marginalized, and then bash conservatives for not supporting the politicians who are marginalizing them. It’s insane!
Let’s look at this through the prism of other movements: Would pro-choice women vote for a politician who announced he wanted to make abortion illegal? Would black voters ever support a politician who wanted to bring back segregation? Would muslims ever support a candidate who was on the record as saying islam was evil?
Would their friends even TRY to tell them they HAD to vote for these candidates even if they didn’t want to?
No! But conservatives are expected to vote for anyone who has an R after their name, no matter how dangerous to the movement, just to avoid the ire of a bunch of wishy-washy phonies whose only brush with conservatism is the fact that they post to this website.
They need to understand - if they nominate Rudy, THEY are responsible for what follows. THEY know many will refuse to support him. So, turning their flawed logic on its head : If they support Rudy, they must actually want Hillary to win. Indeed - if Hillary changed parties they’d be telling us we had to support HER to stop OBAMA!!!!
NO...when I go to post, I got ‘temporarily unavailable’ therefore I went back a hit post again...it happened 3 times....
If Dobson endorses a third party, then we will know for sure that Dobson has whores and a cocaine habit, and Hillary has the file.
Somebody's really jumping to conclusions here. It was my understanding that political organizations that spoke up for a specific candidate were not tax exempt. When a church or religious group becomes simply an advocacy group for a specific candidate, I had read somewhere that they could lose their tax-exempt status. I agree the the inner city churches that bus candidates to the polls so they can vote for a Democrat are much more guilty of this than 99% of churches that lean right.
I'll check downthread to see if anybody has posted something where they actually know the rules on this, but if so, Dobson is just being cagey, and most likely rather smart in not coming out *for* anybody but just being *against* several.
Gore is the only one who can stop her now on the dark side (Yoy - what this says about rat politics!). Edwards and Obama are lightweights - even the rats realize this. And if Ralph Nader runs again, he will wind up in Fort Marcy Park with a newly installed ventilation system. So it’s Clinton the Second or whoever the Republicans nominate - no other choice.
NO...when I go to post, I got ‘temporarily unavailable’ therefore I went back a hit post again...it happened 3 times....
***It’s happened to me twice also.
Excellent post. I wrote a whole paragraph but I lost it in this server issue we appear to be having.
Bears repeating:
And some people on this board are PUSHING it. They not only expect us to grin and tolerate it, they expect us to help!! They see conservatives being marginalized, and then bash conservatives for not supporting the politicians who are marginalizing them. It’s insane!
But conservatives are expected to vote for anyone who has an R after their name, no matter how dangerous to the movement, just to avoid the ire of a bunch of wishy-washy phonies whose only brush with conservatism is the fact that they post to this website.
She said... 'don't vote for Fred'....
Thank you.
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.