|
Title: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: jpn of Seattle on October 09, 2007, 07:38:24 PM Focus on the Family’s James Dobson wrote an op-ed in the NYT to clarify what they are planning if Giuliani wins the GOP nomination:
Quote 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. source (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/04dobson.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin)Idle threat? Perhaps. On the other hand: Quote If the Republicans nominate a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun control, thrice-married serial adulterer who wants to invest in stem-cell research, the religious right’s masquerade will be over. It will be obvious that the movement is practically powerless in the party, and the groups’ benefactors will have far less reason to keep writing the checks that keeps the movement afloat. source (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13107.html#more-13107)Dobson’s op-ed is provocative, but it’s driven by self-preservation instincts. Dobson, in other words, isn’t bluffing. Whether that matters to the party or not remains to be seen. Title: Re: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: Abraxas on October 09, 2007, 08:47:49 PM A pro-choice candidate will NEVER get the nomination. It simply will never happen. It'll cut the party in half between the radical pro-lifers and the moderates...
Title: Re: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: neue regel on October 10, 2007, 04:18:01 AM Quote A pro-choice candidate will NEVER get the nomination. It simply will never happen. It'll cut the party in half between the radical pro-lifers and the moderates... As would a pro-life Democrat. You'd quicker find a three-legged ballerina, though. Title: Re: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: Patton on October 10, 2007, 07:53:04 AM A pro-choice candidate will NEVER get the nomination. It simply will never happen. It'll cut the party in half between the radical pro-lifers and the moderates... Politics is a funny animal....primaries are different than the general election. Some may vote for a candidate in the primary who is closest to their positions/ideals/values....if that candidate makes it to the general election...all is well. If their candidate loses the primary and fails to go to the general election...the choices become more limited: -Vote party (assuming between parties the one you voted in primaries is closest to your positions/ideals/values. -Vote third party (assuming party is close to your positions/ideals/values) understanding you are taking votes away from your "primary" party, and that they may lose from siphoned votes. -Sit the election out (understanding your primary party may lose due to lack of support) -Vote opposition (as revolt-understanding positions/ideals/values you do not support may be given opportunities to succeed.) Title: Re: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: 5uperChicken on October 10, 2007, 08:29:52 AM Also watch for abortion, and a health care "crisis" to become more of an issue than Iraq and the GWOT...Watch for those who accuse people of fearmongering, and based thier policies upon a withdraw from Iraq to make abortion and healthcare the biggest "problems" that we face.
My ticket, as of now would be Guiliani/McCain....possibly another VP with McCin as SecDef. Title: Re: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: OswaldTheOsprey on October 10, 2007, 08:49:14 AM The GOP has to slobber before the Dobsons and the Pat Robertsons while the Democrats have to slobber before the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons. Disgusting in both cases. Ministers, priests, rabbis, and other clerics should be banned from involvement in politics.
OswaldTheOsprey Title: Re: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: illy on October 10, 2007, 09:12:02 AM The religious right has reason to be upset with the GOP. I certainly don't share their views (most of them anyway) when it comes to policy, but they are entitled to their voice. I know quite a few people who consider themselves republican largely based on the fact that they cannot countenance legalized abortion.
I think it's inappropriate policy, but I understand people not wanting to go against their moral convictions. If someone feels that neither candidate from either party represents the values they consider important, they should vote for someone else. Title: Re: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: Abraxas on October 10, 2007, 12:43:25 PM A pro-choice candidate will NEVER get the nomination. It simply will never happen. It'll cut the party in half between the radical pro-lifers and the moderates... Politics is a funny animal....primaries are different than the general election. Right. At the RNC only the Republicans are voting, and while a majority may like him a stronger base despises him. Can you imagine what will happen if the Evangelicals don't vote, or worse vote for Democrats because Guilani or McCain got the nomination? The party would split in half, garunteeing Democrat control until they get their act together, which could be a very long time. Also watch for abortion, and a health care "crisis" to become more of an issue than Iraq and the GWOT...Watch for those who accuse people of fearmongering, and based thier policies upon a withdraw from Iraq to make abortion and healthcare the biggest "problems" that we face. My ticket, as of now would be Guiliani/McCain....possibly another VP with McCin as SecDef. I used to think that... but even though the RNC is a ways away MANY questions are arising about each of their's view on abortion... and even more animosity. I'm thinking Thompson (which scares me considering he really hasn't actually DONE anything) or maybe even Romney, if people can get over the fact that he's not a "regular Christian". The GOP has to slobber before the Dobsons and the Pat Robertsons while the Democrats have to slobber before the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons. Disgusting in both cases. Ministers, priests, rabbis, and other clerics should be banned from involvement in politics. OswaldTheOsprey Precisely. Title: Re: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: Jesus is my pilot on October 10, 2007, 01:06:20 PM "Ministers, priests, rabbis, and other clerics should be banned from involvement in politics."
Very tolerant of you two. Please expound on why you believe it reasonable to limit the involvement of people in the political process... Title: Re: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: OswaldTheOsprey on October 10, 2007, 01:15:48 PM "Ministers, priests, rabbis, and other clerics should be banned from involvement in politics." Very tolerant of you two. Please expound on why you believe it reasonable to limit the involvement of people in the political process... The clerical track record in politics is none too good for beginners. Of course, as a Social Fascist and speaking only for myself, quite a few others need their involvement severely limited also. Remember that the purest example of pure direct democracy in action is a lynch mob. OswaldTheOsprey Title: Re: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: jpn of Seattle on October 10, 2007, 07:25:01 PM Quote A pro-choice candidate will NEVER get the nomination. It simply will never happen. It'll cut the party in half between the radical pro-lifers and the moderates... As would a pro-life Democrat. You'd quicker find a three-legged ballerina, though. Read the paper much? Quote STARKVILLE, Miss., Oct. 5 — The candidate is running to serve his Creator. He is running to restore prayer in schools, bring Jesus into public discourse, force the “money changers” from the state capitol, and move his extensive gun collection into the governor’s mansion. John Arthur Eaves Jr. at Mississippi State University in Starkville last week for a debate in which Gov. Haley Barbour expressed exasperation at the Bible focus. It is not extraordinary in the local context, except that John Arthur Eaves Jr., the man saying these things, is the Democratic candidate for governor of Mississippi. And the politician he is trying to unseat with these shots from the right is a Republican star, Gov. Haley Barbour. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/us/10governor.html?ref=politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/us/10governor.html?ref=politics) If my choices were these two, I'd move out of the state. Glad I don't have to. Title: Re: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: Abraxas on October 10, 2007, 07:42:00 PM Quote A pro-choice candidate will NEVER get the nomination. It simply will never happen. It'll cut the party in half between the radical pro-lifers and the moderates... As would a pro-life Democrat. You'd quicker find a three-legged ballerina, though. Read the paper much? He's not exactly running to be the leader of the party though... Title: Re: Pat Dobson v Giuliani Post by: jpn of Seattle on October 10, 2007, 07:43:41 PM True.
Powered by SMF 1.1.5 |
SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com |