Posted on 05/17/2007 7:31:54 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Religious conservative leader James Dobson will sit out the 2008 presidential election if former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the Republican presidential nominee, he wrote Thursday in an online column.
In a piece published on the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily, Dobson wrote that Giuliani's support for abortion rights and civil unions for homosexuals, as well as the former mayor's two divorces, were a deal-breaker for him.
"I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision," he wrote.
"If given a Hobson's -- Dobson's? -- choice between him and Senators Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran -- or if worse comes to worst, not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."
Dobson, 71, is the founder and chairman of Colorado-based Focus on the Family, but said he was writing as "a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party."
He endorsed President Bush in 2004, the first time he endorsed a presidential candidate.
Dobson's organization says his daily radio program is heard by as many as 220 million listeners over 3,500 stations in the United States. He's also seen on 80 television stations, and 10 Focus on the Family magazines have 2.3 million subscribers, the group says.
Dobson attacked Giuliani for publicly saying he hates abortion but supports a woman's right to have one. Giuliani had been criticized for being ambiguous on his abortion views, but firmly stated last week that he supports abortion rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Rudy Guiliani is not going to be the Republican nominee.
Guliani is absolutely done. You can stick a fork in him. He is a Baby killer and wants to use my tax money to kill them. He is total toast. Bye Bye Rudolf.
I'm with you.
Uh, if you don't vote for the Republican nominee, YOU are effectively voting for Hillary, or whoever is the Rat nominee.
So who's cracking up whom now?
Except . . . I don't think it's the least bit funny.
That’s true until the primaries are over. Then it is a choice between the Republican nominee and the Rat nominee. One of them WILL win.
Dobson’s talk about “sitting out” or voting for Mr. Protest or whatever is the height of irresponsibility.
The purpose of one’s vote on Election Day is to hire the Commander in Chief and Leader of the Free World, period. And that hiring action is going to happen from among the top two candidates whether you like it or not.
So don’t pretend that one can wash his hands of personal responsibility for the outcome of the election by cutting and running on Election Day.
James Dobson is not of the far right. He’s a mainstream conservative who happens to believe the GOP can do better then nominate a liberal as the party standard bearer. Dobson voted for Ronald Reagan, another mainstream conservative. Mainstream conservatism is a whole lot closer to the reality of the Constitution and the Founders ideas of original intent then anything the left offers.
So what if the Republican Party goes away? My loyalty is to the country and, on Election Day 2008, we must hire a President from among the major party candidates produced by the primary system. End of discussion.
I’m going to do everything I can to get the best one hired, regardless if I think both choices stink.
I’m not going to take my marbles and go home like Dr. Dobson, and leave the decision to the yahoos.
“Guliani is absolutely done. You can stick a fork in him”
You obviously know little about politics or mainstream america.
And I'd be interested in Dr. Dobson's answers on these points as well.
Thank goodness there are still some reasonable adults involved in this proces.
I do hope you mean me! :)
I believe Dr. Dobson has the best of intentions. However, he is sadly misguided if he thinks he is absolved from visiting “liberalism” upon this great nation simply because he washes his hands of the eventual Republican nominee (whomever it may be-—if it’s not Rudy some refuse to vote for, it will be the other guy they refuse to vote for).
As I have said many times previously, even a 12-year-old voting on American Idol understands very well that if he can’t stand the thought a particular singer winning the competition, he *must vote for the other guy.* No way around it.
And to claim there is a moral equivalency between elevating the Rat party to power and elevating the Republican party to power, regardless of the individual who is President, is sheer lunacy.
No matter what you think of Rudy isn’t it funny that this warrants screaming headlines by CNN and Reuters?
Looks to me like the media is trying to influence who the Republican candidate is and just in case it is Rudy get the so called religious right to stay home like they did in 2006.
Thank you for your reply, but I hoped for more than generalizations.
Why not name some names? Who do you think might be the Republican administration’s Secretary of Defense compared to the SECDEF in a Rat administration?
Let’s see. What about the EPA? INS? Education?
Give me some names so that I can evaluate your statement that “Rudy’s nominations will [not] be much different than Hillary’s.”
Lately, they're all bad, and none will get my vote. And if Hillery gets the White House, then we've gotten what we deserve.
Just how far are you people willing to stoop? Will you tolerate a pro illegal immigrant prez? How about one who advocates murdering unborn children? Or special favors for fags?
How far is too far? Is there ever a scenario of two candidates where you would say, "They're both scum. I'm sitting this one out."
Because, according to your logic and your statements, if the only two candidates were Satan and Hitler, you'd vote for Hitler because he's not as bad as Satan.
Lou, how can you say that the country "deserves" Hillary Clinton---or any of the Rat candidates and THEIR PARTY coming to power?
Of course it doesn't.
On Election Day, the choice is what it is. You didn't control who the candidates are and neither did I. But here we are.
Do we cut and run because millions of people voted in the primaries and, after all was said and done, we hate the result?
Not me.
Yep, if I agreed with you that Satan was worse than Hitler, I would. All the while planning the next revolution---which, in this hypothetical, would be easier against Hitler than against Satan.
Would I like it? No. But I would not turn the country over to Satan, whom you and I are agreeing is worse for the country, saying "we deserve it."
What we deserve is patriots who face reality and realize that on Election Day, it's not the time or place to waste your vote in a futile act of protest that accomplishes NOTHING except to hand power to the worse candidate.
Please answer this question for me. In your hypothetical, do you think by refusing to vote for Hitler, you would have no responsibility for the fact that Satan was elected? How would that work for 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.