Dobson is making a big mistake.
By paulseale Posted in 2008 — Comments (70) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In one of those "too big fer yer britches" moments in politics, Jame Dobson's threat to support a third party candidate resolves its self to do nothing more bite his group in the rear.
Dont get me wrong about my feelings for Dobson.
While not listening to his radio program for a number of years, I think he and his group can do good things. I believe there are a number of principles which he talks about which are important to debate in our society, and without someone giving it voice no one would pay attention to.
On the other hand this stunt will do nothing more than marginalize the Christian voting block's political pull.
I would also warn my fellow Christians that if Giuliania is the Republican nominee that staying at home or supporting a third party candidate in any form of protest will give us 1992 and possibly eight more years of Clinton. Whats worse is, of course, is that Democrats would hold the executive and legislative branches - with a vastly more idealogical twist than in the nineties.
I would caveat my worries about a Clinton White House if Republicans could retake the House and Senate. That, too, could be in jeapordy if voters follow Dobson's advice.
I do want to point out, though, that we should not sacrafice our long term goals and convictions for a single election. We should pressure any and all candidates to support issues such as life for the unprotected child and preventing government from dictating or senoring our religious beliefs.
We need to do so, though, using our head.
he wouldn't pander to Dobson.
I repeat- I am VERY satisfied with all the 4 leading candidates on the GOP side.
"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"
Barry Goldwater - Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
.....
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater - November 1994, Conservatives Without Conscience, John Dean
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Them's fightin' words sir!
Goldwater in 68 was the ULTIMATE CONSERVATIVE! He was the perfect moder conservative Republican if you will. Actually he was not perfect, but his ideas were. Those ideas where what created the modern Republican party and set the stage for the great Ronald Wilson Reagan.
You have a beef with Goldwater sir, but history stands by my opinion on this subject. Did Goldwater become cranky in old age? yes, was he ever as loveable as Reagan? no, but the Goldwater revolution was what changed this party from a regional economic party to the party that took over the South and much of the West.
Goldwater did have concerns about televangelists that thought government should interfere in private lives, but that is not actually a huge change from his positions in 1964. Remember, Reagan said "government can not solve your problems, government IS the problem" in his famous speach supporting Barry Goldwater.
In fact, this speech is on of the greatest ever explanation of modern conservatism. I think every Republican should watch it whenever he needs a shot in the arm. Here is the link http://www.americanpresidents.org/presidents/president.asp?PresidentNumb...
it is the fourth clickable "watch" link
Molon Labe!
My point is that Goldwater changed between '64 and '82. Lots of people change. Heck, WFB himself started writing anti-war, pro-CFR stuff before his retirement from NR.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
an many get a little "off" in old age. Look at John Warner who is certainly a Democrat at this point. But Goldwater mattered in 1964 and his book "Conscience of a Conservative". I think we should remember him that way and the impact he made on our party.
Molon Labe!
I try to remember him that way, but unfortunately all these lefties and other anti-religious-right people keep quoting his 80s and 90s rants against that large and successful faction of our party, using his reputation to try to attack them as un-Republican. That means I have to be prepared to argue against him.
Yes, it stinks to have to argue against Barry Goldwater, but the trolls make it essential...
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
but they can at times stumble onto "big govenment" ground. Frist was trying to pander to the Religious Right when he forced through the federal ban on internet gambling at the 11th hour attached to a ports security bill. The funny thing is, this attempt backfired and instead of running for president, he is out of work.
There are also those who want to add so many Constitutional Amendments, something I generally oppose. There are even some Evangelicals that support legalizing illegals for "religous reasons".
Again, I normally agree with those who put "Christian" ahead of "Conservative", but I think it is worth pointing out that historically, Christian Conservatives WERE the core group that wanted government out of their personal lives. I hope that view, that has been challenged a few times in the last couple decades, wins out.
No I am not pro choice, no I do not support gay marriage. Often it is the so called little things, such as banning people from gambling, that really rubs people the wrong way. If we are for self determination, we as conservatives must not come off as hypocrites. When one gives more power to government, even for a "good cause", the end result is a government that remains larger, but can take your good cause away in just one election cycle.
Molon Labe!
You went and quoted Goldwater after he'd begun his dotage. Check out what he has to say back when he was the standard-bearer for the conservative movement.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Thomas
I think you'll date Godwater's “dotage” as you put it the the early 90's, and you would be right I suppose from one point of view. From a slightly/lightly Republican Libertarian point of view, he got
pretty well right. I like the term for Goldwater used in the piece, "cantankerous".
From an old WAPost article:
“Gay rights aside, Goldwater is doing lots more to drive would-be disciples nuts. In 1992 he backed a Democrat for Congress over a Christian conservative Republican (his candidate, Karan English, won), and has been applying the full force of his cantankerous personality to frequent denunciations of the religious right and occasional defenses of Bill Clinton”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater07289...
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
...and really think John Dean's a twit.
But can anybody look at what's going on and conclude with a straight face that the "preachers" have gained control of the Republican Party?
We're on the verge of nominating Rudy Giuliani to be president -- if the recent numbers in New Hampshire hold up, anyway.
You can say what you will about that prospect, good or bad. But it certainly doesn't lend too much credence to anybody who thinks that Theocons have gained hold of our party. I'd say it supports the exact opposite contention.
The religious conservatives are, and long have been, an important and critical voice in the broader conservative movement. And I don't see any reason why they wouldn't continue being. But, sometimes, politics requires coalition-building and being part of a coalition necessarily means that, sometimes, your preferred views don't carry the day.
SoCons and other religious conservatives have to know that they do not have the numbers or the clout to build any governing mass on their own. The same, frankly, goes for me and my wing of the movement -- which is smaller than theirs. We're codependents. They need others and so do we and so do others who are looking to sell their ideas into a governing coalition.
But, if everytime the other members of the coalition win the day so far as nominating candidates go the SoCons decide to take their ball and go home, then they're only going to marginalize themselves right along with the rest of us -- until a realignment could shake out.
Because the left isn't going to make any concessions for them. They've already got their social policy wing and it's dominated by feminists, secular humanists, and Ralph Neas types.
They'd gladly take the votes and support of the Dobsons and Lands of the world. But they should be careful about expecting any movement for their issues.
I can understand the frustration of not having a social conservative on either ballot. But, because we have a two-party system, it means that sometimes you just have to pick the lesser of two evils -- more often than not, really.
Really, Giuliani is the exception that exists in the Republican Party *only* because he was Mayor of New York on 9/11/2001. He has ridden that horse and no one is willing to knock him off it because he's the 'hero mayor' of 9/11. He is an authoritarian who is more afraid of shadows and is willing to turn American into a Nanny State - all under the guise of keeping you safe.
We've made our own bed. By calling anyone who opposes the war 'un-american' or 'traitors' we've boxed ourselves into silence when dealing with Giuliani. We have to break away from the Myth that 9/11/2001 meant handing our security, and by extension, our responsibilities, to the Government. Otherwise, Giuliani will ride our silence all the way to the Republican Nomination.
And when it comes down to it, I think Giuliani is a stronger believer in big government than Clinton, scarily enough (certainly, he's for an expansion of police powers as well as the expansion of federal social spending).
So, Dobson is stuck. Stuck either having to support a candidate that he feels is beyond the pale. Or stuck threatening to throw his weight behind a third party candidate to either force the rest of the republicans to pick another, more acceptable candidate.
Personally I think the main reason Dobson hasn't gotten behind Huckabee is because Huckabee *won't* change his thinking to appease Dobson and his group. Huckabee is also more tolerant than the Dobson group, more understanding of the frailties of Man.
When it comes right down to it, Dobson won't support any candidate he can't control. if I thought Dobson and his hateful crew would leave, I'd vote for Giuliani and hope he isn't as Big Government as I fear. Just to cleanse the Republican Party of the hatred festering from groups like his.
Dobson's problem with Rudy have nothing to do with "OMG Ghouliani is going to turn America into an even MORE fascist police state!!!!11!!1111!!1!"
It has more to do with his position on abortion.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Agreed and beyond that I think that Dobson hates, utterly hates the fact that Rudy won't listen to him (Dobson). At the same time, Dobson has absolutely refused to give his support, however luke warm to other candidates who are more in line with his position, and I think that stems from Dobsons desire to control the candidate and have that candidate under his thumb.
"We've made our own bed. By calling anyone who opposes the war 'un-american' or 'traitors' "
Who is "we"? I have never done that. bad troll
And when it comes down to it, I think Giuliani is a stronger believer in big government than Clinton,
That must be why he cut spending and fired government workers in NYC right?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
We are responsible for what our party voices say, if we don't like it, we need to get rid of them and reduce the venom in the debate. We cannot disown what Coulter says any more than Moveon can be disowned by the Democrats.
As far as Giuliani goes, name me a security program he doesn't like. He's for government funding of abortion and certainly doesn't seem to mind expanding the powers of the government at every turn. if you care to cite some sources for the NYC Budget by year for the last 20 years, I'd love to see them.
I am not going to do any research for you on Giuliani because you would not listen to it anyway. You don't like him fine, but if you say he would be Worse than Hillary for expanding government you lose credibility.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I know,
crazy to say it, but I wasn't right, Giuliani has had fiscal restraint, and I confused my own arguments because of that.
My apologies for the confusion.
(I won't go into what I meant to say, but suffice to say, You are correct and I was wrong in my statement).
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
With the above AuH2O quote, I wonder if Barry is also commenting on the illegal immigration issue. I remember that compromise meant "amnesty."
Yeah, that worked out well.
Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe. - Reid Bryson, speaking on Global Warming
Instead of demanding Christians, and pro-life voters, support Giuliani, maybe you ought to consider what a mistake it would be to nominate him. Yes, I am putting the responsibility back on your shoulders.
I could never vote for Giuliani, and that's regardless of whether Dobson or anyone else supports him or not.
Do you realize if we nominate him, how that will move the body politic to the left? Already, on a number of issues, the conservative side is hardly heard. It's too high a price to pay.
I am very disappointed with the so called Republican Top 4 in this race. It speaks volumes about the current leadership of this party. Unless things change, I cannot see any of the 4 defeating Hillary Clinton.
Has the Republican Party really moved this far left since 2000? Or just its leaders?
Republicans should be able to take back the House, assuming they run conservative candidates. It will be tough to take the senate, since 22 are open, to 12 democrat seats.
I think Hillary Clinton is beatable, but not by running a liberal.
Good grief -- how many liberals do you know of who are supporting him? Venture out to the liberal outposts on the Internet. I guarantee you that you will be hard-pressed to find even a single, genuine leftist supporting him.
Some liberal.
There is no question that RG has more liberal views on a handful of social issues than most Republicans. So what? So does GWB -- who, among other things, tried to push through a huge amnesty program (mimicking Ronald Reagan, I might add).
You guys in the social conservative movement need to take a hard, serious look at where you are....and I say that as a friendly who shares plenty of your beliefs. You do not have the numbers to win an election on your own. You may have the numbers to cause a loss, but you do not have the numbers to win.
Well, join the club. Building majorities requires building coalitions -- and building coalitions necessarily means a diversity of thought and opinion. And, more, a diversity of thought and opinion means that, sometimes, your opinion won't be center stage.
Don't make the same mistake that various factions of the left-wing coalition made. They, too, have at times been so rigid in their ideology that the prospect of compromise was just out of the question.
It didn't serve them well.
'Liberal' is not a term that in any way accurately describes today's left, so looking there for comparison doesn't make sense. If we use liberal in its common American sense of the left of roughly 1932-1968, Giuliani fits in.
The fact that Giuliani doesn't get along with the post-'68 Democratic left does not make him less of a liberal.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Have you been paying attention to Giuliani's rhetoric on, say, healthcare? Whatever terms you might use to describe it, Rockefelleresque isn't one of them. In fact, the Republican candidate who most closely seems to be following that line is Mike Huckabee -- who's running a positively populist campaign.
What defined the Rockefeller Republicans wasn't so much social liberalism as it was economic liberalism. Look at the policies that came from the Nixon White House: wage and price controls, economic regulation in the form of OSHA and the EPA, affirmative action, etc.
Really, I don't think Giuliani is representative of any well-heeled movement in Republican history. He's an avowed Reaganite -- few candidates in the Republican field today speak more glowingly of Reagan (and Giuliani is the only one who can actually say he worked in the Reagan administration). Yes, he has those 2 or 3 social issues that separate him from most other Republicans, but that doesn't exactly compare to the way Nelson Rockefeller actually was....not on its own, anyway.
I'm not sure what label to put on him. But "liberal" really isn't the first one to spring to mind -- particularly after hearing him talk about fiscal policy matters, national security matters, etc.
I heard when he wanted taxpayer-funded abortions. Are you saying that's the only form of medical care that he supports taxpayer funding for?
And a lot of people are avowed Reaganites. Probably only one person in ten in this party thinks he isn't a Reaganite. That's meaningless.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Is support for taxpayer funded abortion THE litmus test for determining whether a candidate is a big government liberal???
Have you even taken a cursory glance at Rudy's record in NYC?
I think you are failing to see the forest by concentrating on a few SoCon trees.
My point is that anyone who will invent constitutional rights to new government spending can't be trusted to mind the till.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Guliani was a prosecutor and then mayor of a large, polyglot, mostly liberal city. He was not a blogger or a philosopher king. Prosecutors don't get to make laws or choose (much) between laws; they enforce them as they find them. Likewise, a mayor has only limited power over the laws and policies of a city beyond his executive authority to enforce those laws and policies and his access to the smaller version of the "bully pulpit."
If I'm a mayor of a city with a serious crime problem, especially a mayor with a prosecutorial background, I'm going to use any law on the book I can to try to get a grip on that crime. Learned philosophical discussions of the 2nd Am. make for great after dinner conversation but they don't get bad guys off the street.
If I'm a mayor of a city with a significant underclass that demands abortions, in the post-Roe world, I have to provide those abortions either using my city's funds or demand that the US, Roe is US law after all, fund abortions out of Medicaid. Now a right-to-life purist's answer would be that he should have just refused the abortions, but I don't think he had the legal power and in any event in NYC doing so would have been political suicide. As to his public stances on abortion during that time, he was an officer of the Court, and the law is the law. The fact that one might have personal disagreements with that law is, again, nice fodder for after dinner conversation, but in your public persona, Roe is the law.
Likewise, control of the illegal immigration is the US' problem, not NYC's, a city that during his tenure had multiple choice problems. Guliani had plenty for the NYPD to do besides doing the INS' job. Again, taking the position of not enforcing immigration law with NYC resources was both practical administration and practical politics.
Now, I'm not a Guliani supporter. If for no other reason, I have an heriditary predisposition against ANYONE running for national office from New York or Taxachuesetts, but I could sure vote for one if the alternative was the Lady McBeth of Little Rock. Now that he's moved to a larger stage, Guliani has some 'splaining to do about positions he took while a prosecutor and mayor, but I can certainly see those positions as practical positions in those roles. He isn't restrained by that practicallity now and needs to come up with convincing positions on what his stances now are as a candidate for President of the entire Country.
In Vino Veritas
You're right, for a mayor of New York City he was quite good. You'd never have seen me criticizing him probably ever if he'd not run for higher office.
But he's decided to run, and so that opens him up to criticisms that just don't apply at the mayoral level, but are important for federal office.
And no, there's no chance I'm going to break my lifetime string and give a vote to a Democrat. None.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I don't demand anything out of Christian Conservatives that I wouldn't demand out of Aetheist Conservatives. When James Dobson goes out of his way to insult the beliefs od Fred D. Thompson, then Dobson is way out of line. Especially, when he publically denies Fred THompson even received a valid baptism. That's Kosland Kool-Aid; not rational discourse.
When Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson so badly embarrassed the Va. GOP that the voters were willing to re-elect Chuck Robb after Senator Robb was caught snorting cocaine off the butt of a Playboy centerfold, these individuals are damaging the party.
These people either learn to play nicely and accept that they, personally are not Moses, or the GOP will blow them off and they will be marginalized.
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
The MSM has perpetuated this myth in order to give credibility to the far left. GWB was and is a right-leaning moderate. Not on social issues, but certainly on others. We knew this going into the election in 2000. It's one reason why he didn't win by more than he did. He wasn't conservative enough for many.
-The U.S. Constitutional System is simply controlled revolution-
=== 13 ===
At the same time I understand the consequences of sitting out an election.
Last year (as 1992) should remind people that elections have consequences.
With what we have a stake in 2008 (socialized medicine, loss of freedom of speech, etc) - I refuse to try and "teach Republicans" a lesson.
To do so would be full hearty and will cost us 8 more years of Clinton - minimum.
However, they need to put up or shut up by supporting, enthusiastically, someone other than Giuliani - McCain, Mitt, Fred, Brownback, Huckabee.
Dobson's critique of Thompson's baptism makes me want to throw up.
Giuliani is not a social con, and has never pretended to be one. Nevertheless, he is not by any stretch of the imagination a liberal. Unless one thinks he thrived in the Reagan admin because of the support of his fellow liberals, and ditto as mayor of NYC. In which case, can I smoke some too?
I think Hillary Clinton is beatable, but not by running a liberal.
You "think"? The polls that show Giuliani to be our most competitive candidate say otherwise. "Think" is not good enough. If the GOP candidate loses to HRC, expect Stevens and Ginzburg (at the very least) to be replaced by two jurists to the left of Ginzburg. If HRC is smart, they'll be really young ones, which means they'll be around for a long, long time. R U OK with that?
I could never vote for Giuliani
Even if the choice is Giuliani VS Clinton?
Yes, I am putting the responsibility back on your shoulders.
And now I put it back on yours.
On this Earth, the one that you and I and Giuliani and Dobson and Clinton live on, and the one that the 2008 Presidential election will be contested on, a HRC win (coupled with a likely Democratic Senate and Congress) will make it much more likely that the pro-life movement in this country will be set back. It certainly won't advance.
Rudy Giuliani has promised to nominate strict constructionist judges.
Are you OK with running the risk of a Christian Right third party movement electing Hillary Clinton President? If I may be direct, won't THAT put many more unborn lives at risk?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
or, in the words of the Dread Pirate Roberts: "I do not think that word means what you think it means".
"Rudy Giuliani has promised to nominate strict constructionist judges."
Yet Rudy has also said that he thinks a "strict constructionist" jurist could vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade. Even liberal Larry Tribe says Roe v. Wade is bad constitutional law.
I'd like to know what dictionary Rudy is using to define the term "strict constructionist" -- and I hate the sinking feeling that we're going to need Clintonesque parsing of the "meaning of the word 'is'" no matter which party wins in '08.
I think it is both just and prudent to think about the possibility of supporting a third-party candidate should Giuliani obtain the nomination.
It is just, because party loyalty is less important than loyalty to principle.
It is just because there has been no reciprocal party loyalty from Mayor "I-luv-Cuomo" Giulini.
It is just because there has been no reciprocal fairness coming from the many, if not so-called "moderates" who have colluded with liberals in depriving us "socal conservatives" of our political equality--that is, by supporting Roe v. Wade and other outrageous decisions that declare certain issues outside politics.
It also may be prudent--at least to talk about it. Conversation about this subject may dissuade voters from nominating him--a candidate, I think, may likely kill the conservative coalition, whether he wins or loses.
It might also be prudent to actually support a third party, because a President Giuliani arguably might setback conservativsm much mroe than another President Clinton.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
I don't see a reasonable candidate running on a third-party solid conservative ticket, and I don't see many solid conservatives jumping ship to vote for him. They (we) realize there's too much at stake to let a socialist gain the presidency. I didn't see it at first, but I do now.
-The U.S. Constitutional System is simply controlled revolution-
=== 13 ===
The problem with third Parties is that the Republicans and Democrats have essentially made it impossible for a third party to make any traction on the national level. If you want to see third parties get traction, you would have to make reforms like IRV, eliminate Gerrymandering, and find a way to get past the belief that voting for a candidate who can't win is a 'wasted' vote.
Also, Third Parties generally have to work ground up, and while they can garner some local support (the Socialists, Greens and Libertarians all have people elected to local offices), it takes a 'cult of personality' type figure to create a third party out of whole cloth, and typically, when that figure leaves, the party breaks apart in a fratricidal bloodbath (the Reform party being the latest example).
Work on making reforms to get third party politics possible, then maybe, just maybe, we can see some meaningful third party candidates come out.
Dobson is a very relevant political player, currently, but I'm afraid that this move will make him irrelevant. Calling for a third party is kind of a political version of jumping the shark, I'm afraid.
Don't get me wrong, I dream of the day that the Democratic party has died, and the two-party system we have is composed of the moderate-to liberal wing of the Republican Party remaining "The Republican Party" and Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint and the like found the next great American political party - a party for conservatives. I like "The Liberty Party" or "The Freedom Party" but I'm open to suggestions. :-)
What would members of the Freedom Party be called? haha
Dobson is over reaching and if he makes such a move it kill destroy what influence "Christian conservatives" will have in the party and politics in general.
I probably do not go as far as Dobson on some issues, but rest assured if he carries through with this threat and Hillary is elected (or even Rudy), being a Christian and running for office or offering any type of input will be looked down upon.
It is already nearing that point already and this will finish it off.
Freedom party fairly drips lame. Why not just be on the nose?
"The Conservative Party"
Think of how 'cons' lends itself to marketing materials.
absentee
If Jim Dobson has any illusions about the road he's travelling down, he should go ask Pat Buchanan, who already went down that road 8-12 years ago.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Tom Tancredo, now he's going down Buchanan Lane.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
"The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the both the Council for National Policy and the smaller meeting were secret, but they said members of the intend to publicize its resolution."
"Still, he added, 'But I do believe there are certain core issues for the Republican Party—low taxes, strong defense and pro life— and if we nominate some who is hostile on one of those three thing it will blow up the GOP.'”
Sheesh. I know that they've fallen on hard times over at the Times, but now they're hiring illiterates to write their blogs?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-con...
It's beyond believe that a large GOP voting block would even consider supporting a third party and give HRC the WH. Dobson and his followers know better than this. Let's see how this play's out. I think we'll be OK. Ruby will still be a hard sale for this group but if it's Rudy or HRC..they can pick their own poison. If they let HRC get the WH then their group will get the blame and so they should. Ruby will look pretty compared to Dobson, should that happen.
Trying to see if the party will blink first...
-The U.S. Constitutional System is simply controlled revolution-
=== 13 ===
as in central committee or some such thing. If he's playing chicken, it's with millions of voters who may express a decision he doesn't like.
This could be a ploy to see which one(s) will come crawling back to him and the other "religious leaders". Don't think for a moment that part of what Dobson is doing isn't about power.
-The U.S. Constitutional System is simply controlled revolution-
=== 13 ===
Rudy could do or say at this point to get Dobson's support? It's not going to happen.
As for the rest, there's a difference between not endorsing a candidate, and seriously contemplating a third party to oppose him.
The way I see it is Dobson is telling them "don't nominate Rudy or you'll lose the Christians". If Rudy wins the nomination my guess is he'll give "tepid" support for Rudy because the alternative is just too scary. Dobson has nothing to lose by playing hardball at this point in the game.
-The U.S. Constitutional System is simply controlled revolution-
=== 13 ===
I like and respect Dr. Dobson and I feel he has benefited America a great deal. However, I think he is missing four key points about Rudy Giuliani.
1. IF Rudy Giuliani gets the Republican nomination it will be IN SPITE of his position on abortion. The soul and core of the Republican party will still be opposed to abortion and supportive of the pro-life position. Rudy is smart enough to know this, and I think Rudy's passion will be taking on terrorists and their sponsors and that he won't do much about abortion one way or the other.
2. Opposing Rudy in the primary is one thing - certainly Mike Huckabee is more pro-life than Rudy. But if the general is Rudy vs Hillary, Rudy is the pro-life candidate. If you have a choice between mediocre and awful, pick mediocre. And try to get a solid social conservative on the ticket as VP.
3. Rudy would appoint much better judges than Hillary.
4. If a young solid social conservative like Rick Santorum is on the ticket as VP, that person will be well-positioned to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 or 2016.
David,
Your point 4, Santorum, brings what to the ticket? He is damaged goods even in PA where he could not hang on to his own seat in the Senate.
What would adding Santorum to the ticket do in a positive manner in a General election, besides as a nod to Dr. Dobson and the social conservative wing of the party?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Neil
General elections are about carrying Reagan Democrats, moderates and others, not just the base, or in this case one part of the base.
So no...throwing a "bone" to the social conservative wing of the party would be silly pandering, and the Democrats would beat the guy at the top of the ticket over the head with that.
How about instead a standard of someone qualified to serve as President if something happens to the Big Guy. Santorum, Tony Perkins, Dr. Dobson or any of the other names being floated would not qualify in my view.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Winning the General Election means compiling a majority of the electoral college.
And who are the Reagan Democrats anyway?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Neil
Too easy. The Democrats who are not members of moveon.org, who do not support the nutty left. In short, good folks who may disagree with you on many issues, but are good people that are ill served by ether extremes of the political spectrum and don't align with ether.
There are more votes in the middle than on ether extreme of the political spectrum, which is why Hillary will move to the Center after the primary, and why whoever is the Republican standard bearer moves there too. Primaries are where both bases fight for their positions, and most politicians court those bases, and then rapidly move away from come general election time.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Are you saying that Giuliani is just a panderer and will just run left again as soon as the convention's over? "Move to the center" after "courting the base" would seem to imply just that.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Neil
Is this a test of some kind? You seem to be as they say "begging the question" which seems to me that you are trying to provide some untoward comment. As Bush Sr. would say, "Not going to do it, would not be prudent".
I am saying that any and all Presidential candidates will say things in the Primary that they often times distance themselves from in the General election. You want to call that "pander", knock your self out, I call it real-politic.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Giuliani and Romney are susceptible to the pander charge because, well, what they've said now isn't always in line with what their track record shows.
Guys like Thompson and Brownback I don't think can accurately be accused of pandering though, because the things they're saying are the things they've always said.
And that's what I like in a candidate. I want a guy whose gut will tell him to do the things I want him to do.
But anyway, 'pandering' does not mean saying things the base wants to hear. 'Pandering' is when you say things the base wants to hear THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE. And I have to believe that anyone who would say one thing to get nominated, and then another to get elected, has to be a panderer at some point in that process.
So yeah, I guess I'll just knock myself out, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Rudy/Watts
Rudy/Steel
Rudy/Santorum
maybe even in that order....
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
If Fred or Mike doesnt win the nomination, and its Rudy - I wouldnt mind seeing a Rudy/Watts or Rudy/Steel.. or yes, a Rudy/Huckabee connection.
Thompson has said its all or nothing for him, so that eliminates him from a potential VP spot.
if he doesn't win the nomination for me all he brings to the table is discussion and activism.
I think he would be a great spokesman on principals, doing the things that frankly Rudy has done over the last few election cycles, toss red meat to the base.
I'm disappointed that the "Christian Coalition" wasn't his target of choice, and there I think he blew it right from the start. If he had connected with them I would have expected Rudy to have to move further right socially, not pander exactly or flip flop, but review his position perhaps. AND I say that as an ardent supporter of his, but hey this is what the primaries are all about, re-positioning and re-visiting views.
It might be time for Rudy to visit the Pope and come home a changed man, miracles do happen.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I think Rick Santorum is solid on both social conservative and national defense values. However, I meant him as AN example - I think there are also many other solid social conservatives who would make a good VP candidates.
I would like to see a Giuliani-Santorum ticket carry Pennsylvania. Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part. But if the republican nominee does carry Pennsylvania then we probably won't see a President Hillary.
I think it is important for social conservatives, defense conservatives, and fiscal conservatives to cooperate as much as possible and be willing to compromise.
Rick is washed up for years to come, if not forever.
I would like to see him retake Pa. AS well. And I would like to see African Americans get tired of being tools for the DNC. And I would like our borders secure.
But it ain't likely to happen.
"[James]Dobson attended the meeting, but is not yet participating in any planning for a third party, said Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family Action. Dobson and others spoke out against the idea at the meeting, even though both major parties could nominate candidates who back abortion rights and other policies that conservative Christians oppose, Schneeberger said."
http://www.spectator.org/blog_email.asp?BlogID=8476
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I see this as a reaction to the fact that GOP candidates haven't been acourtin', so to speak. Right now, Brownback and Huckabee seem to take them for granted, while McCain, Romney and Guiliani write them off. FDT has stayed on the fence, and that has antagonized Little Miss Dobson.
Dobson wanted FDT to approach him and offer him an entre into this year's primary race. Fred Thompson wouldn't, so Dobson got huffy enough to originally question the validity of FDT's baptism. That was an overreaction, Thompson would probably have broken bread with Dobson, sans the personal insult.
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA