Poll: 27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani
In response to this article in the NYT’s by James Dobson, I wanted to link to this Rasmussen Reports poll. Keep in mind that “a survey conducted earlier this month found that 72% of Republicans think Giuliani is at least Somewhat Likely to win the White House if nominated. However, the current survey finds that number falling to 58% if Christian conservatives back a third-party option. ”
Dobson:
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.
The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.
Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.
The more the religious establishment lines up against him, the more Rudy becomes the protest choice for conservatives who think the religious right has too much sway over the party. I’ve got to admit, for all the grief I give him, I’m starting to lean towards Rudy myself. Exit question: Is his lead solidifying?
He cites the sanctity of life in his decision to oppose Giuliani – yet at the same time, he is ready to go AWOL when it comes to defending the sanctity of life from terrorists and nutcases like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
James Dobson’s blackmail is reprehensible, and the GOP should not give in to it.
Dobson appears to be willing to lose the courts and cheerfully lead the march over the cliff. Because no matter how you slice this one, it is political suicide. One that many people are going to regret on their way to the bottom.
memeorandum has tons more here and here
October 4, 2007 - 02:36 PM on October 4th, 2007
Do you have the real story from Dobson, or just a cut-and-paste version from some liberal? That has happened many times.
October 4, 2007 - 02:39 PM on October 4th, 2007
Ooops, I see you posted the article. Sounds like Dobson just wants to return to traditional values, and those who scorn traditional values scorn his views. Blackmail, indeed!
October 4, 2007 - 03:14 PM on October 4th, 2007
At first glance, this seems to support SFL’s theory. However, the question is:
Who is a third party pro life candidate?
This doesn’t mean they wouldn’t vote for guiliani if they were not presented with that option and it doesn’t say anything about the what the third party candidates other views wouldinfluence the decision making process eiether.
October 4, 2007 - 03:14 PM on October 4th, 2007
I understand Dobson wanting to be true to his message of promoting family values, but this is unacceptable to me. Last time I checked, he, nor his following were Jesus Christ. There are many issues facing this country, and abortion is but one of them. His alternative is another Ruth Bader Ginsberg that seems to think nothing of 12 year olds having abortions…he might want to think about that. Stevens is probably the only Court nomination that will come up if a Dem gets in, but you never know! It seems like a childish way to handle the situation!
October 4, 2007 - 03:16 PM on October 4th, 2007
3- Ted, I put that up there hoping you would be my prized pupil….
Rudi needs to come out against abortion and all is good it looks like!
October 4, 2007 - 03:28 PM on October 4th, 2007
Yes, this is supporting evidence for my theory that the Christian Right just won’t vote for Guiliani, and that it’s looking more likely that H. Clinton will be the next president.
————
On a completley different note, you all know I live in San Francisco, and as I type this there are F/A-18 Hornets flying acrobatic manuevers only HUNDREDS of feet above my roof.
And just now, I looked out the window and saw four WW2-era aircraft flying in formation RIGHT down my street.
F*cking awesome!!!!
October 4, 2007 - 05:17 PM on October 4th, 2007
At least you appreciate it. I wonder if Stupidvisor Sandoval and some of the other A-holes there are angrily plotting the next anti-Military initiative.
October 4, 2007 - 10:53 PM on October 4th, 2007
Personally, I don’t believe in violence, killing and causing harm in most cases…but I do love the roar of a kick-ass fighter jet screaming by over my head.
I appreciate Honor and Sacrifice, and I’m sure that most of my Liberal brothers and sisters do too.
We just want our military to be used for Good – not for mindless, unnecessary, counter-productive imperialistic adventures like Vietnam and Iraq.
October 5, 2007 - 06:15 AM on October 5th, 2007
6, SFL, hypocrite. Your people are trying to ban that very event and also disband the military.
October 5, 2007 - 06:19 AM on October 5th, 2007
8, No, SFL, your lefties, personified by the Clinton Administration, showed the world that you think the military are just glorified sea going bellhops to be sent on Meal on Wheels missions only.
October 5, 2007 - 07:28 AM on October 5th, 2007
SFL….the evidence of NON support from the liberals in this country for our military is overwhelming and coming in at an alarming rate. Unfortunately you can’t always pick and choose. Clinton chose to go into Bosnia and save the muslim serbs but only after 4 million of them were slaughtered. He did this WITHOUT Security council approval. That was okay with you guys but when the really serious issues like Saddam harboring terrorists and WMD you all wimp out. THAT’s what makes us look weak.
Truly sorry you got to see those fighter jets. SF doesn’t deserve our military’s time of day. Be that as it may I see them alot where I am. Sometimes I only hear them they are so far up in the sky. It’s a good feeling to know they are there though.
As for Iran…I guess you are okay with them having nukes as well? At least you must be because most liberals are currently downplaying the threat.
October 5, 2007 - 07:32 AM on October 5th, 2007
5.
LOL- thanks, I think.
The bottom line here is when there’s a poll that says the Christian right will stay home and allow a hard left social-ist candidate like Hillary Clinton to be elected instead of voting for Gulliani then maybe SFL will have his supporting evidence. Until then, I think he whistling past the graveyard on this topic. Using the weapon of choice for liberals, polling show over the past 8 months that they are in a dead heat head to head- pretty much within the margin of error. This scares the bejeebus out of the Democrats- they can probably beat any other candidate except him. The fact is that he ;eads all Republican candidates.
October 5, 2007 - 07:33 AM on October 5th, 2007
PS- when I use the proper spelling of “social-ist” in post 12, it at that post also!
October 5, 2007 - 08:58 AM on October 5th, 2007
“Your people are trying to ban that very event”
—————–
I didn’t vote for them, and I certainly don’t support the banning of the Blue Angles during Fleet Week.
Not every SF Liberal was for the ban…it failed by a 7-2 vote.
October 5, 2007 - 09:00 AM on October 5th, 2007
14, just who voted for those supervisors, the tooth fairy, the turf monster, the promised spending cuts by the 84 Democrat congress?
October 5, 2007 - 05:41 PM on October 5th, 2007
15, Who voted for them?!
Uhhh, the people in their districts did.
October 5, 2007 - 06:18 PM on October 5th, 2007
“just who voted for those supervisors, the tooth fairy, the turf monster, the promised spending cuts by the 84 Democrat congress?”
A bunch of mentally-ill, spiritually-diseased, drug-addled human debris.
October 5, 2007 - 08:32 PM on October 5th, 2007
There are 34,000 Registered Republicans here in San Francisco, you know.
(!)
October 5, 2007 - 11:30 PM on October 5th, 2007
I heard Dobson on the Sean Hannity show today. The man is nuts. While I can appreciate a man who believes he should vote with his principles, I can tell him from experience that backing a pointless third party candidacy will put Hillary in the White House for at least four years. Four Years during which this country could be irrepairably shoved into a downward spiral towards becoming a third world S%^thole just like our southern neighbor. Four years which will include pointless investigations, criminal activity, an enormous increase in tax rates, and a massive loss of liberty. Liberties that once lost might require another revolution to regain. He and his ilk need to understand that they either vote the closest candidate or get the one that’s furthest away.
After living through one Clinton presidency after voting for Perot, any third party candidate other than Jesse Ventura would be hard pressed to get my vote. Jesse might actually be able to muster enough support to win on a third party ticket. He’s got great credentials. Former Navy Seal, great name recognition, great face recognition, published author, and did a pretty good job as governor from all I’ve heard.
October 8, 2007 - 10:43 PM on October 8th, 2007
I saw Dobson on Hannity and Colmes this evening- the man basically said that speaking strickly for himself and not Focus on the Family under no circumstance would he vote for Guiliani.
He may be nuts, but I am beginning to think that four years of Hillary screwing things up so horribly that not even the media can smooth it over (like the Carter era) is what this country needs.
I just might vote for sHillary myself.
October 9, 2007 - 06:22 AM on October 9th, 2007
Well Ted, just remember that this isn’t the 70’s any longer and this country can’t afford the luxury of sitting through it and then hoping for a second coming of Ronald Reagan. Times are moving forward, not backward.
I find him to be a hypocrite on his entire platform. He is passionate on prolife, yet will throw backing behind a radical pro-choice candidate? Somehow he thinks that if she gets in, the conservative movement can fight any legislation, yet if Rudy get in, there will be no fight? He is out of touch with the conservative base.
He cited municipal judges as a basis for who Rudy would pick for S.C.? Seriously? That is what he has to go by? Were they all bad choices? How do they stack up against the pick that are in place by the Dems?
He says that Rudy’s record isn’t good in NYC? He and those he hired, turned the city around and made it a safer place to be.
He says it’s difficult to explain? Then maybe he should just shut his mouth until he can.
October 9, 2007 - 09:13 AM on October 9th, 2007
“Times are moving forward, not backward.”
No, they aren’t. That’s the point. When neither party presents viable candidates, this is the result. IMO, that’s moving backwards.
“He says that Rudy’s record isn’t good in NYC?”
No, he said his record appointing conservative judges in NYC isn’t good.
“He says it’s difficult to explain? Then maybe he should just shut his mouth until he can.”
Yes he did, but I understood what he was saying. While I don’t agree with many of his viewpoints, I do admire the man for taking a stand on what he sees as the central issue of his lifetime- abortion.
No- I want Mr. Dobson and all others like him to keep talking even if I don’t agree with what he said. Perhaps the Republicans will return to being conservatives.
I think we’d all be better off that way.
October 9, 2007 - 09:20 AM on October 9th, 2007
Oh, and with that all said I will have to bow to SFL’s foresight on this one and say he was right. Because of this, Hillary is more than likely going to be the next President, unless something radical happens and the Republicans can regain the support of the Radical Right Christian Fundies.