Monday night, Sean Hannity interviewed Dr. James Dobson on the recent news that many conservative leaders may support a third-party candidate if Rudy Giuliani is put forth as the GOP presidential candidate.
This third-party business is a huge deal.
Hannity makes no bones about supporting Giuliani (an issue for another day). So I was not surprised he took the "lessor of two evils" approach with Dobson, i.e., if we don't accept Giuliani, we'll certainly get Hillary.
Dobson responded not just with solid moral arguments but two solid political arguments....
1. It's way too early to try to force conservatives - again - to compromise.
2. Who says Giuliani can beat Hillary?
Good people I know are warning against a conservative split from the GOP, and Dobson
acknowledged the danger.
But for many reasons, I'm open to following conservative leaders like Dobson and Tony
Perkins down this path, if they so decide....
Continue reading my column today, "Why Dobson is right," on WorldNetDaily.com.
Click the graphic below to access the Hannity/Dobson interview. There are 3 segments, all worth watching:
Does anybody besides me think that a split of the Republican Party by the leaving of conservatives, Christians, and other traditional Americans is a good thing, long overdue, and yes, painful.
I would rather make the split even if it means electing Hillary! Donít Christians and conservatives have any courage and faith in themselves and their God? We have watched for at least 16 years and itís the same old story. We are lied to, used, and mistreated by the Republican establishment time and time again.
Letís make the break, dig in, and work hard for the long term with OUR party. If we had done this in 92 we would be far better off in all conservative areas than we are today.
The bait that Christians and conservatives always take is that we will force in a liberal. It reminds me of the Peanuts cartoon where Lucy is always saying she wonít move the football, and Charlie Brown is dumb enough to believe it. The Republicans always move the football after we elect them.
OK, look at it another way, I am 54. If we get our own party, that being Christians, conservatives, and like minded traditional Americans, now and Hillary gets the Presidency, well I will be 58 when she stands for re-election. That gives us 4 years to make a strong national party.
OK, letís say itís another 4 years. Now Iím 62. Donít you think weíve got enough on the ball to make it big after 8 years of hard work and planning, building both a national party and state party affiliates? Then we can have enough political courage and strength to impeach a few Supreme Court justices and federal judges and be done with it!
This is where the cowards come in! I sometimes think Dobson and company canít stomach the reality of what it is going to take to turn this country around and make it work. I would rather do the work and take the chance than have the Republican establishment move the football again.
Letís see, Iíd be 62, and America has changed for the good, for the long term; I could live in peace to the grave with that! The time is NOW. Letís make the split and put our faith in the Lord to make the way!Posted by: Travis at October 10, 2007 3:13 AM
Preach it Sistah!
Shout it from the rooftops!
You've never been more right, and I support you and Dobson 10,000%!
Get me a bumpersticker, a yard sign, and save me a seat at the phone bank. Anyone who fails to vote for the third-party values candidate is a godless, bloodthirsty babykiller. Yeah!
Right-on! Running a pro-life third-party candidate is a FANTASTIC idea! Just look how well it worked for the liberals in 2000! If not for their courageous, principled stand, President Nader never would've been elected, and we might be stuck in some god-awful quagmire in the Middle East right now.Posted by: tp at October 10, 2007 7:38 AM
I would rather work to support a pro life democrat. I think there is a much broader base of support for such.
I don't think a religiously based approach would even appeal to christians let alone non christians.
I also am not convinced Guiliani would beat Hillary.Posted by: hippie at October 10, 2007 7:44 AM
I saw the interview, Dr Dobson is right.Posted by: jasper at October 10, 2007 8:14 AM
I think they have failed to realize why both ends of the republican party need each other. The neo cons need the religious masses to vote for their guy based on the faith he is said to have in contrast to the godlessness the democratic candidate is said to have, in order to push through their policies and control the things they want to control. The religious leaders need the most blow hardy of the neo cons to convince the religious masses how godless the democratic candidates are, and also need them to keep the republican machine going on overdrive (because you can't cheat, steal, lie, mislead the public, and torture people if you aren't a despicable human being, which most religious people are not).
Anyway, I am all for this split. What better way to insure that a Democrat gets elected?Posted by: JKeller at October 10, 2007 8:19 AM
Be reasonable, people. We can't win with a third party. As much as we might not like it, we need the libertarians and economic conservatives to join together with us in order to win anything, and the only way that's going to happen in 2008 is through the Republican Party. In the future, perhaps that will change, but it's not going to change in one year.
Every single candidate running as a Democrat is strongly pro-abortion. Every single one. Face facts; the national Democrat Party is now the party of child murder. I don't see that changing any time in the next 10 years. Meanwhile only one of the Republican candidates is pro-abortion. So it's our job to prevent that one Republican from getting the nomination, and it really shouldn't be that difficult. The more people know about Rudy, the less they like him.Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 10, 2007 8:24 AM
Hannity is a moron. Why doesn't he just say something like this: if Stalin has an (R) after his name, I am going for it?
In truth, Rudy and Hillary are more alike than they are different. If Rudy's elected, we'll all be fined $200 for spitting on the sidewalk, $175 for honking, abortion, Machievellian foreign policy, and did I mention that everyone that's been married more than 5 times gets tax credit (all the time while masquerading as a "Catholic")?
If Hillary's elected... well, you know what will bring--abortion, repackaged neo-paganism, socialism, horrible foreign policy (some Muslim countries would refuse to meet with her because she is a woman), and higher taxes--while taxpayers that cheat on their wives get to write-off their expenses (while masquerading as "I walk on water too").
Either way, it will not be good--for more reasons we aware of.Posted by: Chris at October 10, 2007 8:26 AM
Yeah, let's continue to have the party of child murder vs. the party of child molestation! No other parties!Posted by: JKeller at October 10, 2007 8:27 AM
Posted by: Sheri
at October 10, 2007 8:33 AM
I'd be interested in knowing the percentage of pro-lifers that go to the polls? What if all pro-lifers were to vote and then trust God with the results? Let's promote voter registration and voting for every election-local, state, & federal.
I think the only third party candidate who could win in 2008 is Ron Paul. While I don't support him (or anyone else for that matter), I can't tell you how many of my friends do. Liberals, conservatives, atheists, Christians, pro-lifers, pro-choicers.....he has a wider base of support than any of the other candidates currently running. I doubt he'd win the Republican nomination, but he'd at least make things interesting as a third party alternative.
Even Barry Manilow gave the MAX contribution to Ron Paul!Posted by: Phil at October 10, 2007 8:33 AM
Tell you what, I voted for Bush first time around, was not really sure I wanted to the second. The first time, shame on him, the second time shame on me.
I was so upset for many reasons on Bush. I read in the Bible that the god of this world rules the governments. Pray for them, yes, but we are told to hold them accountable. Not many have!
The old tale of, "if we don't put in a GOP we get Hillary," is the lie of the devil. This time around because G-d says no one sits on the fence, we are either for Him or against Him.
Therefore, I will vote Constitution Party. If the decent honest don't win, so be it. At least G-d knows my heart, I will NOT compromise His Word.
It also says in Scripture that apostasy would come. It is here all over the world. The silence of the church is deafening. G-d also will send a bad king to punish and turn around His believers.
In the meantime, we see Ezekiel 36-38 being fulfilled and we also know He said He would be back in two days. 1000 yrs is like a day to the L-rd. Time is all but up. The church thinks they replaced Israel, and they don't seem to care that G-d doesn't change, no shadow of turning - Genesis 12, Joel 3 and many more. Anyone who doesn't bless Israel, is cursed.
Now they have topped that and thrown out the gospel for Rick Warren's humanism, bringing the world into G-d's house and learning the ways of the heathen. G-d warns us from such turn away. They don't seem to mind they are all signed up under the cults, anything from rock and roll to yoga to meditation is A OK.
I have no doubt G-d is NOT pleased. There are so many Scriptures that man interpets, tho the old T is the foundation and the interpetation of the New T. Scripture interpets Scripture.
It is a sad mess out there to see the silence of the people who send their precious children into the public schools, let them be drugged instead of disciplined, as discipline is love according to Proverbs.
Same with G-d when he sends bad times or lets satan have his way like with in Job - lessons to be learned.
Many will be destroyed from lack of knowledge, forever learning and not coming to the truth. The wolves are in the church with the phony prophets saying, "Thus says the Lord."
After all the years of warnings, they have fallen away. It is very sad. We are to count ourselves worthy to escape the things coming onto the earth. They all need to turn back today.Posted by: Kim S. at October 10, 2007 8:34 AM
I believe that Dr. Dobson is wrong. Please don't get me wrong. I love his programs and what he stands for, but I believe that he has his head in the sand.
We Republicans have a candidate that is worthy and we don't have to strt a third party. His name is Alan Keyes. We are in this place again because the religous right has placed their heads in the sand and not supported the right people. Dobson had a prime opportunity to use Dr. Keyes' name on prime time and didn't do it, once again squandering an opportunity to get his name out. The press isn't going to do it so we will have to.
I think that it is time for people like you to and Dr. Dobson to use your place of relative power and recognition to advance the name of Dr. Keyes and what he believes in. The Christian world and the Religous Right ought to be this interested in politics 24/7 not just 6 months before the election. We will wind up with Clinton or Giuliani because we havn't done our job and forced the mainstream press to recognize that we are serious and we are a majority and we want more than the pityful options that they decide to give us. Hear me again - WE have failed to do our job!Posted by: Ron P. at October 10, 2007 8:39 AM
Ron, re: Alan Keyes, he may be solid on issues but he's a prideful man, and that is a major stumbling block to his getting anyone to listen to him.
I'm in IL. Christian conservatives worked very hard to get him here to run against Obama. Then he walked in and alienated everyone. He walked away leaving the situation - the status on our issues - worse than when he walked in.
No, no Keyes. There is a reason he got the lowest senate vote total in IL history. The reason is him.Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 10, 2007 8:42 AM
I was encouraged to read that you may consider the advice of Dr. Dobson and other social-cultural conservative leaders, to explore the possibility of supporting a third party candidate, in opposition to the anointment by Sean/Rush of Rudy Guiliani as the Republican candidate.
Unfortunately, I have been down this road before and do not anticipate a sizable number of Republican "conservatives" will abandon Rudy should he become the national candidate of the Republican Party. After all, the boogey-woman Hillary looms as his potential rival, and, a vast majority of Republican "conservatives" will once again "hold their nose" to prevent Hillary from being elected President of the United States. The only thing that can possibly unite the Republic Party under Rudy's candidacy, is having Hillary as his opponent.
I know you are an ardent supporter of Bush II, but, God forbid, I am beginning to think Bush II has done more harm to my country than did his immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton.
Our borders remain open and the invasion continues unabated. Our national sovereignty has been outsourced to corporations whose loyalties are to the corporation rather than our country.
Our all volunteer army is tasked with re-building the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. 1 in every 6 American children suffer some type of early childhood development problem, such as, asthma, allergies, autism, juvenile type 1 diabetes, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, ADD, ADHD, and our President just refused, again, to honor his campaign pledge to remove thimerosal/mercury from vaccines - too costly dontcha know.
Nah, I will NEVER again hold my nose. If the nominee is Rudy, I am exercise my vote by NOT voting.
....and the way Keyes treated/treats his lesbian daughter was so horrible, there's no way he could gather enough support. I think you would have GLBTI activists praising Cheney's handling of his daughter over Keyes!Posted by: Phil at October 10, 2007 8:47 AM
If we go a third route and Hillary wins, then so be it. We must vote and act with an approving conscience.
If Hillary acts as we expect she would as President, then the shooting simply begins sooner, which may be better. I don't want to fight the next war of independence from my wheel chair.Posted by: Craig W. at October 10, 2007 8:49 AM
In this case, I have to disagree with you. Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican who can defeat Hillary, and if Hillary wins, the Republicans and conservatives will never get their power back.
Hillary is a she-devil, and she would drag the United States down into horrible judgment by God.
Meanwhile, Rudy is friends with Scalia and Alito, and he would do a lot better job than many social conservatives think in nominating justices to the Supreme Court, etc.
On the other hand, we know that Hillary would select justices and judges like Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Hillary is an European socialist and a 60s radical, and her evil must not prevail in 08.
The 08 elections will be among the four or five most critical in U.S. history.Posted by: Clay B. at October 10, 2007 8:51 AM
Dobson is SO wrong! This election is about keeping Hillary outta the White House.
IMHO Dobson has morphed into a king maker wannabe, confusing his own ego for "God's will."
Any GOPer (even a Mormon) is better the a Hitlery disaster!
And you (and Dobson) know that!Posted by: FiddlePig at October 10, 2007 8:57 AM
Every election is billed as the most critical election. I've only been alive for a few of them, but even I can see this.Posted by: Phil at October 10, 2007 8:57 AM
I was not at all surprised at the title of your column today. I thought when I read the piece yesterday - that was basically Dr. Dobson saying we must vote our conscience and forget about political affiliations because we must do right in God's eyes, regardless of what our fellow man thinks - that you would be among the first to climb on board.
After battling with this administration almost since it's inception over the drastic move from the right to trying to meet the Democrats in the middle over health care, prescription drugs and "no child left behind," I concluded it would be better for this nation to know what Mrs. Clinton really means and what she really does when she has been given authority, than to vote once again "for the lesser of the two evils."
I now stand firm in that belief, and I will vote for a candidate who vows to actually secure our borders, will actually take action to start those 12 to 20 million criminal aliens on their move back home, and will start the disassembly of our bloated and unconstitutional federal government, regardless of whether I think such a person can win or not.
It is better to fall while standing on principle than to slither aside and avoid the carnage but lose one's moral and ethical foundation as one slithers.
Sometimes one has to literally see the worst before they know it in their heart, as opposed to knowing it rationally but not fully conceptualizing the very real and actual damage that is done when such a one is given power.
In this next election, I'm with you. I am going to vote for the candidate who is firmly established in the vein of returning this nation to its foundation, and at the same time firmly stating what that foundation is, and how we received it.
If we have fallen so far that Mrs. Clinton does get the majority of the votes, then it simply means we need a lesson only she can provide, and while it is good to learn from other's experience, there are times when no one else's will carry the day, and on that day, one must suffer the injury to learn the personal lesson.Posted by: John M. at October 10, 2007 9:06 AM
"If Hillary acts as we expect she would as President, then the shooting simply begins sooner, which may be better."
Shooting? I'm no Hillary supporter, but my god man, what do you "expect" she'll do as president? I figure she'll be pretty much like the rest of them, content to micro manage a few things and protect her reputation as someone who doesn't rock the boat.
She may finally get that flag burning amendment she's so excited about. Pfff.Posted by: Hal at October 10, 2007 9:15 AM
This does seem like an 'entrenched' debate. However, there is what is known as the 3rd OPTION. The problem is that the change sought is only one way - conservative. There is not a legitimate shift in approach, across-the-board.
Instead,. there is a kind of 'floating constitution' where people of a body-politic decide what will their basic laws (political rights and obligations) be for the next 50 years.
To separate the rule-of-law from economic thrusts, in the middle of the 50 years (for 50 years). The electorate choose their own economic thrusts (ie. paying for pensions, Medicaide, etc) for 50 years.
There are all kinds of benefits to this system ... the least of which: it guarantees inter-generational dialogue. The electorate has input on policy.
To work will demand involvement of the electorate. There is no 'siding' one way or the other ON ANY ISSUE .... including family values; abortion; etc - it's up to the electorate and not a party to make a decision ... a system of correction to implement these changes is also chosen by-the-people!Posted by: John McDonell at October 10, 2007 9:15 AM
Posted by: hippie
at October 10, 2007 9:52 AM
Okay, that is hilarious.
Like Dobson, I too have struggled with the "lesser evil" voting technique. In fact, Ronald Reagan was the last President I "voted for." Every vote since has been a lesser evil vote.
It was never a difficult choice because the lesser evils have always been (to some extent) pro-life.
Like Dobson, my lesser evil vote ends if both candidates are pro-abortion because I will not be able to sleep at night knowing I voted for
any pro-abortion candidate. And people like me who vote for a third-party candidate or don't vote at all will not be to blame if Hillary is elected, the "Republicans" who nominate a pro-abortion candidate will be the guilty party.
God bless you and the work you're doing.Posted by: Bill S. at October 10, 2007 11:00 AM
I have been a strong follower of Dr. Dobson (though not always in agreement).
However, when I heard him on Fox regarding his possibility of joining or promoting a third party, I was disappointed. We don't need a third party. There is a very well-qualified candidate within the Republican party that if all conservatives would get behind him could walk away with the Republican nomination.
That is Mr. Huckabee. He has all the credentials and is charismatic as well. If all of us would get behind him and contact all our acquaintances to do likewise, we just might surprise everybody.
Please consider this.
Verna, if you watched the Hannity interview, Dobson was saying they would only consider that route if a pro-lifer wasn't put forth, i.e., if Rudy ends up the nominee. If Huckabee makes the nomination, there would be no need for a 3rd party candidate.Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 10, 2007 11:33 AM
I always love reading your articles. I would like to encourage you to take a close look at Mr. Huckabee. I believe this man is very sincere, and is definitely pro-life. He's probably not perfect, but who is-whether they be third party, or even the respected Mr. Dobson.Posted by: Tawanna at October 10, 2007 11:36 AM
Tawanna, I am looking at him. He is solid. Dobson was saying they would only consider 3rd party candidate if someone other than someone like Huckabee, i.e., Giuliani, ended up the candidate.Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 10, 2007 11:48 AM
I heard this interview as well and found it scary that someone like Hannity would drop abortion as an issue just to get a Republican in office at any cost.
In a way, heís right to do anything to keep the Democrats out, but like Dr. Dobson said, we canít hold our nose and vote for a lesser-of-the-two-evils candidate. If someone like Guliani is pro abortion, we will surely find more hidden liberal outrages if he is elected. If you are not for the protection of the most helpless in our society, you are NOT American in my book.
I am fully willing to support a third party candidate who supports Christian and conservative values even if I risk splitting the republican vote during the next election. The republicans have proven themselves to be wishy-washy and poor leaders as they continue to placate islamofacists (so called ďreligion of peaceĒ) and serve the pagan gods of globalism at our expense. I cannot trust what they say anymore.
Unfortunately, Biblical prophesy is silent on the U.S. in the end times. I think weíre about to figure out why..
I worry about my kids!Posted by: Jeff C. at October 10, 2007 11:51 AM
It will be people like you and Dobson who will end up giving us a President Hillary with a democrat Congress, and it will mean the end of our country.
If the Communists democrats ever gain complete control they will rig the system where they will never lose it again. It will take a new Civil War to take our country back if they win in 08. That is how important this election is.
The democrats are controlled by Communist George Soros and he is intent on creating another Soviet Style Republic in the US. We must not let the democrats win even if we have to elect a red cow as president. If someone like Rudy wins it will at least give us a chance for improvement in ALL areas whereas with a democrat we lose ALL areas.
With Hillary and a democrat congress abortion will be paid for by Americans all over the world. This won't happen with a republican in office because the other GOP members will prevent his pro-abortion stance from advancing.
Don't be selfish and kill America over one issue.Posted by: Robert M. at October 10, 2007 11:56 AM
Robert, you ironically said, "Don't be selfish and kill America over one issue." Sorry, but America is already killing America via that one issue. We're trying to stop the killing. You don't do that by electing someone who condones it.Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 10, 2007 11:57 AM
That's why I and many others I've talked too are supporting Ron Paul because he's the true 3rd party candidate. I'm no longer going to hold my nose and vote for people that are shoved in my face.
I've never liked Hannity Insannity I've always thought he was a rino. Any person with any moral courage would never support a cross dressing, gay supporting, wife exchanging rino like Ghoulianni!
If he gets the Republican nomination I don't vote! PERIOD! As far as I can see there would be little to no difference between Ghoulianni or Hillary! At that point I leave the country in God's hands.Posted by: Pastor Dan at October 10, 2007 11:59 AM
I sympathize with your position and would love to punish the Spector, Hagle, Snow, Collins, McCain, Warner, Voinavich et al group of faux conservatives. They have been a major thorn in the side by holding the rest of the party hostage and betraying us at every turn.
Since 1964, when Barry Goldwater and later Reagan took the party out of the country club globalist, big business mindset and got down to core values, the Republicans have been at war with themselves. I would love to marginalize these people and start a new party of strong, real conservative positions. We would win, no doubt.
But, until then, we cannot afford to let the Democrats gain any more of a foothold, because you and I both know what they want to do. We need to begin a grassroots movement to push our beliefs at the state houses, gubernatorial, and congressional levels to primary out these country club pseudo conservatives and replace them with solid social and fiscal conservatives. It must begin at the 2008 primaries.
In the meantime, we need to deal with the best presidential alternative to beat the socialists. I don't want Hillary Clinton in office for one second--the consequences could be devastating for our work against abortion, big government, the Second Amendment, and immigration. These people are way more dangerous than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson.
I would rather have Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo and would work to get one of them the nomination but, with a strong Congress full of solid conservative senators and representatives, the less than ideal Republican President would be blocked in the Congress from moving too far left. Then, in 2012, we can primary him out of office!Posted by: David N. at October 10, 2007 12:05 PM
*snort* You guys are hysterical today. Talking about how candidates are devils and demons and how the end is coming! Honestly. Get a hold of yourselves. It's an election. It happens every 4 years. Chill out.Posted by: Erin at October 10, 2007 12:07 PM
I just wanted to express my belief that the Republican Party does not actually want to succeed in enacting conservative idea.
The reason they don't want these issues resolved is obvious because it keeps a large number of voters energized each election, and by pandering to them they get to keep their Rockefeller Power clique in office.
It is time we acknowledge we are being played like a violin and start a true Conservative Party. If this takes a Third Party, so be it.
God bless and keep up the good work.
Any respect I may have had for Dobson is now gone. His comments are childish and foolish, and his strategy would bring about the worst result of any of his stated choices as well as marginalize the community that he claims to represent for decades.
Christian conservatives are already viewed with enormous suspicion by the other members of the conservative coalition as narrow minded, single issue voters with no concern for the wider issues facing the country, and this imbroglio seems destined to confirm their fears.
Rather than make contentious comments and threats about supporting some third party candidate, Dobson would do well to actually name the candidate that he supports and make an argument for his support. Instead, he has chosen the same route that the whackjob/Moonbat leftists take in their attempts to steer the Democrats even further left than the socialist path they are already on.
I am a pro-life Christian and am profoundly conservative, and I have no use for the likes of Dobson, a nonelected, self-appointed "leader" of nothing. His latest foolishness will only help turn my indifference toward him to outright contempt. It is a terrible disappointment to me to read your opinion in support of this disastrous strategy.Posted by: Jerry H. at October 10, 2007 12:16 PM
Jerry, you nullify the validity of your thoughts by being pro-abort. You don't understand. Of course you don't like Dobson taking a stand. Of course you like the GOP's almost wishy-washy position on the life issue. You get social conservatives to help with your issues without having to endure any consequence of us.Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 10, 2007 12:19 PM
you can't be a PC Chritian.Posted by: heather at October 10, 2007 12:24 PM
*meant Christian*Posted by: heather at October 10, 2007 12:25 PM
Heather, the majority of christians are PC.Posted by: SoMG at October 10, 2007 12:38 PM
Just playing devil's advocate,
Who would vote for Hillary if she were prolife and the Repub. weren't?
Note, this isn't intended to be realistic, just thought provoking.Posted by: hippie at October 10, 2007 12:41 PM
I would absolutely vote for her if she were prolife.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 10, 2007 12:45 PM
From the Alan Guttmacher Institute:
Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic.Posted by: Laura at October 10, 2007 1:09 PM
"But, until then, we cannot afford to let the Democrats gain any more of a foothold, because you and I both know what they want to do."
Please enlighten me.. What is it the "evil" democrats want to do?
I agree with Erin, it's just another election, we have them every four years. Looks like the country is ready for a Democratic president after 8 [insert insult here] years of Bush.
On most issues, there is not much of a difference between the parties or their canidates. I hate to break it to you, but a Obama or Hillary presidency won't look that much different than one run by Rudy or Mitt.
Anyone who wins will surely disappoint their "base" and irritate the opposition, but all are more competent that what we've had recently. Anyone of either party will be a vast improvement.Posted by: Hal at October 10, 2007 1:29 PM
"Who would vote for Hillary if she were prolife and the Repub. weren't?"
Hippie, that question is so foriegn, it just doesn't apply. I'm sorry, I just don't know any liberals who are pro-life, none at all.Posted by: jasper at October 10, 2007 1:33 PM
jasper, do you know *any* liberals whatsoever?Posted by: JKeller at October 10, 2007 1:39 PM
Yes, plenty JK, I work with a bunch of them.Posted by: jasper at October 10, 2007 1:43 PM
Hippie, that question is so foriegn, it just doesn't apply. I'm sorry, I just don't know any liberals who are pro-life, none at all.
Posted by: jasper at October 10, 2007 1:33 PMPosted by: Laura at October 10, 2007 1:44 PM
And with as much time as you spend trashing liberals, they haven't fired you yet?
Jasper saves up his venom for the internetPosted by: Hal at October 10, 2007 1:56 PM
So, I'm watching the Zeitgeist movie for the first time, and it is possibly the most terrifying thing I have ever seen in my life.Posted by: Erin at October 10, 2007 1:59 PM
I haven't seen itPosted by: JKeller at October 10, 2007 2:03 PM
"And with as much time as you spend trashing liberals, they haven't fired you yet?"
No, some are conservatives like me...but we can debate, etc. without hating each other.Posted by: jasper at October 10, 2007 2:37 PM
Jasper, I'm a prolife liberal.Posted by: Carrie at October 10, 2007 6:50 PM
OK I'm am going to put my 2 cents in on this since I emailed these video's to Jill Stanek on Tuesday at 4:00AM in the morning.
I used to vote the "lessor of two evils". I realized this was not working about 5 years ago. Now I only vote for the Pro-Life candidates period. I don't care if their Independents, Republican or Democrat if you can find one.
I now vote for the Pro-Life candidate period! If there is not one in the General Presidential Election, then I'm voting for the third party Pro-Life candidate.
This issue has already killed over 45,000,000 babies. It's time to put a stop to it.
Right now I support Mike Huckabee. He has been fantasitic in the debates and I never heard about him until this year. If it ends up Hilary vs. Guiliani then I'm voting for the third party Pro-Life candidate.
I believe in voting the way Christ would vote -- Pro-Life even if you feel that candidate cannot win. This is all I can do and leave the rest of the outcome in God's hands. In the end I think we end up getting the person we deserve.
So bottom line -- I agree with Dobson!
A few added points. If you want to reduce abortions over 80% without overturning Roe v Wade, then push for...
Federal Legislation mandating Abortuary's show ultrasounds/sonograms to pregnant women seeking abortions before the abortion takes place.
We should also ask for at least a 48-hour waiting period between the time the ultrasound/sonogram was shown to the women and when the abortion is scheduled to take place.
This will help to put a huge dent in the number of abortions performed in America no matter who becomes President.
MikePosted by: Mike at October 10, 2007 7:26 PM
"Jasper, I'm a prolife liberal."
Ok, thats 1.Posted by: jasper at October 10, 2007 7:56 PM
In the end I think we end up getting the person we deserve.
MIke, I have to laugh - I agree with you, though perhaps not for the same reasons.
You know, I applaud you for going with what you believe most strongly, rather than being politically pragmatic.
DougPosted by: Doug at October 10, 2007 10:50 PM
Laura: Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic.
Indeed, and a surprising number of people who describe themselves as "born again" or "fundamentalist Christians" do too.
Just a good example of a person actually being in the situation, and seeing that reality is that sometimes it's best to end an unwanted pregnancy.
In the political vein, there have been some mighty "conservative" Presidents who brought Supreme Court justices onboard and then saw them vote in fairly "liberal" ways.
DougPosted by: Doug at October 10, 2007 10:55 PM
In the political vein, there have been some mighty "conservative" Presidents who brought Supreme Court justices onboard and then saw them vote in fairly "liberal" ways.
The Roe Court:
Burger, C.J.(Nixon'69), Douglas (Roosevelt'39), Brennan (Eisenhower'56), Stewart (Eisenhower'58), White (Kennedy'62), Marshall (Johnson'67), Blackmun (Nixon'70), Powell (Nixon'71), Rehnquist (Nixon'71).
We should also ask for at least a 48-hour waiting period between the time the ultrasound/sonogram was shown to the women and when the abortion is scheduled to take place.
People like you just relish the idea of punishing women. In this case, it's taking a woman who can't afford a child, and sticking her with extra travel, possible hotel costs, time off of work and school, and babysitters for her existing children.
Using your logic, shouldn't we make life more difficult for women who want to conceive?
After all, you do seem to think women aren't bright enough to make their own reproductive decisions. Shouldn't they be forced to look at the information I think they should have before they enter into a life-altering process? Shouldn't they have to spend a couple of days processing that information before I give them permission to conceive?Posted by: Laura at October 11, 2007 2:10 AM
Laura, be careful. Some of this crowd would love to impose a waiting period before unmarried people have sex.Posted by: Hal at October 11, 2007 8:48 AM
The two parties we have "representing" us currently are incredibly inadequate. They ultimately are two-sides of the same coin. We need a genuine third option, but I don't believe a "neo-conservative" party is the best one. At least not one that is going to expand the government and focus solely on legislating social issues and ignore a conservative fiscal policy.
We need to vote for a third candidate option in this next election...Ron Paul.
Pro-Life, Small Government, Pro-Constitution.Posted by: DS at October 11, 2007 9:53 AM
We need to vote for a third candidate option in this next election...Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is only marginally pro-life.
He's a talking turd.Posted by: Jacqueline at October 11, 2007 2:36 PM
I agree he's only marginally pro-life (leave it to the states to work out) but what's your problem with him otherwise?Posted by: Hal at October 11, 2007 6:28 PM
I have to disagree:
Paul is pro-life, and calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion." He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction - in accordance with the federal Constitution.
Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view. During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights.
Paul has said that the 9th and 10th amendment to the United States Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue".
Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction. In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion. In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.
In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure". He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas to no longer be binding. He once said, ďThe best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.ĒPosted by: Laura at October 11, 2007 9:38 PM
Jill, have you given thought to the idea that maybe Almighty God has a plan here? That maybe America is destined for a weak, globalistic, humanistic, liberal, socialist President?
The reason is that once the Rapture occurs and we Christians are removed from this world, that then it will be ripe for the picking of the Antichrist and his one world government, one world religion?
Just a thought.
Tom, yes, we know God has a plan. But He doesn't condone sin as part of it, He allows it. It's not His will that we have pro-abortion leaders, but He will use pro-abortion leaders toward His plan.
Your theory is certainly one way He could be going.Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 12, 2007 5:23 AM
From a faithful reader. Jill, I love what you do. I love the passion, the truth, and the humor with which you so expertly compose your columns. I read you on the World Net Daily site and always enjoy your point of view. You are well read, unrelenting, and keen. I like your face, too.
But...? Okay, you knew it was coming.
Well, its the use of the word "cojones." Yeah, I know, Barbara Simpson used it on a column last year, too. It is crude. You are far too much a lady (yes, a splendid one at that) in my mind to toss that one in.
From my vantage point, America is becoming more coarse by the day. The word "ass" is now acceptable even in job interviews, news shows, etc. Many are doing their best to normalize the word "f***ing" (for use as an adjective) and the implications of this are foreboding.
Please don't help them. Guys usually laugh when they hear "balls" or "cojones" used in conjunction with bravery, but it still firmly in the camp of the profane.
I hope this isnt hard to read. I think you're a great woman! Please, just consider it. Thank you.
P.S. I was rereading an old column from some time ago. This isn't related to any recent writings.Posted by: James K. at October 12, 2007 5:30 AM
James, smiling here. I totally understand where you're coming from. Yet every now and then there is no other word... :)
I seriously appreciate not just your concern for a coarsening world but also your attempt to protect my image.Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 12, 2007 5:32 AM
The reason I won't vote Republican is that I won't vote for the lesser of two evils. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
You were given a God given right to vote here in the US. You will have to answer to God on judgement day as to how you spent it.
Maybe Hillary will win as a result of you and me voting for what's right, thats ok. We will have done as God commanded, and those who didn't will have to reap what they have sown.
All politicians fear not getting re-elected. It's way past time to teach them to fear God and those they have abandoned. Do not let them hang onto power using, "if you don't vote for us the democrats will win." Make them understand we will only elect those who do what is right.Posted by: Ken L. at October 12, 2007 5:39 AM
Ms. Stanek, with deep regret, I acknowledge that the Republican Party is about to disappear from American politics. The party has been taken over by a group of psuedo-Republicans whose aim is to maintain political power for the "so-called Liberals." It ain't gonna happen! At least they will not get a psuedo-Republican elected to any office again in this country.
We've had enough of this crack-pot GW Bush - the man is totally out of his mind, and getting worse each passing day! Yes, I voted for him twice, but I can tell you my vow - I will NEVER again vote for anyone that even remotely appears to be another Dubya! NEVER! And there are millions more out there just like me!
None of the present Republican candidates appears to be a true Republican. All of them resemble Dubya in many, many ways.
Thanks for a splendid article.Posted by: JHS at October 12, 2007 5:44 AM
John, I have to disagree that President Bush is out of his mind. He may have gone down the wrong path at certain times and on certain issues, and he may have not stood as strongly as we'd like on others. But out of his mind? I don't think so.
I also disagree that none of the current slate of GOP presidential candidates are worthy of our consideration. There are a couple who appear good. Mike Huckabee appears to be gaining in consideration. Keep a watch on him.Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 12, 2007 5:45 AM
For the next election for the first time in my life, I will not vote for the lesser of the two evils.
Either someone of the two parties is running that I really want, or my vote will go to a 3rd party candidate that is a Christian in deed and action!
His Will Be Done.Posted by: Dave J. at October 12, 2007 5:46 AM
You go, girl! As Zapata said: "I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees."
At least when the Red Queen gets elected, we will know exactly what we are up against.Posted by: J. M. J. at October 12, 2007 5:48 AM
Item: No third party has ever made a dent in this century nor the last, indeed, not even in the 19th century. The abortion issue is not of the same scale of importance as say, slavery, although there are some interesting similariries.
To vote for any third party is to waste your vote and time.
As to compromise, well, it's like this, Stanek: The Founding Fathers had to compromise on many things in order to get this Constitution done. The greatest of these was the addition of the Bill of Rights. Perhaps you don't know (or care) that James Madison was for the direct tax, the income tax, and said so in a letter to Hamilton in July 1787, but he had to accept the prohibition on the per capita or direct tax. He had to comptomise. No anti-taxer of today would do any such thing, but then, such a stance, to avoid any compromises, rarely gets anything done, especially when Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and others had differing opinions on many issues. Compromises must be made.
So sorry, but the job of dictator or supreme law giver isn't available in the USA.
The Court, even this Court with so many conservatives, won't do much about Roe. It can't. Besides which is the following rumination by Madison. He noted that the Constitution was only the auxiliary precaution, that if the people had a passion for a long enough time, they'd make their representatives do their bidding. He used as an example, the issuance of paper money. You will claim that this is a republic, not a democracy. Yet this evades the central issue of Who Rules? Those congressmen, senators, presidents, judges and the rest are elected or appointed by the people, and must do at least some of the people's bidding in order to stay in office, indeed, to get anything done while in office. The people rule, not directly(the definition of a democracy is the direct rule by the people--a republic is the indirect rule by the people), but they still rule, not only in politics but in commerce.
Besides, the one note piano of the abortion issue isn't enough. There's well, a war, an economic problem, global warming and all that, immigration--just to name a few.
Jill, take a leaf from the Apostle, who said that when he was a child, he spoke and acted like a child--but when he grew up, he put away childish things. Grow up.
This third party approach is precisely how Christians will end up putting Hillary into the White House! If the conservative vote is split it will guarantee the Clinton's return. Is this truly what Christians want, for it sure appears to be their leadersí intent.
We don't need a 3rd party candidate when we already have an uncompromising conservative pro-life Christian willing to stand up for life, marriage, and restoration of the Constitutional Republic. It is time for the Christian right to rally behind the Republican candidacy of Ron Paul.
Republicans, conservatives, and value-voters already have a candidate with a proven strong core conservative Christian values record with Ron Paul. Ron Paul reflects all core Republican values. He is the choice candidate for all conservatives, constitutionalists, value-voters, pro-life, pro-marriage, strong defense, strong border security, small limited government, and the restoration of states rights.
The vast majority of Americans (over 70%) now want to put an end to the Iraq War and bring the troops home now. Even Hillary and Obama don't promise to do that. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate of both parties committed to doing this now. He is the ONLY candidate who could pull from the Democrat's base, the Libertarians, the Constitution Party, and the Independents, as no other candidate could do.
He is the one candidate who can expand the Republican base. He is the one candidate who could actually win against Hillary in the general election. He is the only candidate who can restore core Republican values to the failing GOP.
It is my prayer that Christians wake up to this fact before it is too late to save this great country of ours.
P.S. Ron Paul is the answer to all of the GOP's problems.
Cheryl, Dobson isn't suggesting pulling the 3rd party trigger now. He only suggests it is a solid pro-life Republican doesn't end up the presidential nominee.Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 12, 2007 5:58 AM
You're confusing the issue.
At the time when conservatives should be concentrating on the PRIMARY in the GOP the talk of the third party option only helps to decieve the base into thinking that at this point in time they need to be concerned with the GENERAL ELECTION and the Hillary-boggyman. And your column today sadly plays right into this.
For example, a friend of mine actually said that Alan Keyes couldn't beat Hillary because the media wouldn't cover him. I asked my freind, "Do you really believe that if Alan Keyes GOT THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION that the media would cover him?" Of course he instantly realized how foolish his statement actually was but this shows how easily the public can be sucked into following the thinking they pick up from the overwhelmingly Democrat, pro-abort, pro-homosexual media and letting the choices of their editors determine or heavily influence who they think they must vote for.
WHOEVER the Republican nominee is, he will have enough press coverage to be a household name by the time election day rolls around. Of course if that person happens to openly identify himself as a pro-life, pro-family, Christian constitutionalist ( i.e. a. true conservative) the ungodly will do their best to make him look like a fool and will savage him any chance they get -- but hey, even G. W. Bush managed to survive that.
However, if nominating a REPUBLICAN nominee who agrees with the positions of the self-identified DEMOCRAT journalists and editors is to be the goal in the GOP primary, then vote Guliani because the media has made it clear that they will not consider the expression of his pro-abortion, pro-homosexual views to be hate speech.
Christians who can't even wait until the PRIMARY is over before declaring defeat in that process (i.e. time to move to a third party because of a GOP pro-abort, pro-homosexual nominee) don't deserve the label "leader" -- except in terms of the way Jesus used it when he talked of "the blind leading the blind."
JP, we disagree, obviously. The most important focus is indeed the primary. If we lose that to a Democrat-lite, game over for the GOP. Then 3rd party becomes a valid option. Dobson is simply warning the GOP.Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 12, 2007 6:03 AM
Sometimes one has to feign immorality to maintain morality. Despite my belief that the Mormon religion is a cult I still believe that Mitt Romney is the most moral and logical choice.
If Dr. Dobson doesnít realize the damage he is doing with his mindset, and people like you that agree with him, the Republican Party could be splintered and we will get Hillary and Bill and Ickes and Begalia and Berger and a Nuremberg Jury in lieu of a Supreme Court.Posted by: Paul D. at October 12, 2007 6:05 AM
Paul, Dobson's main focus right now is to get the GOP to ditch Rudy. As far as I know, Dobson has not spoken against Romney. He has only spoken against McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani.Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 12, 2007 6:06 AM
I agree he's only marginally pro-life (leave it to the states to work out) but what's your problem with him otherwise?
Mostly the fact that he's a talking turd.Posted by: Jacqueline at October 12, 2007 9:06 AM
Dobson is right not to vote for a Rudy Julie, or any other pro abortion candidate. Thompson, McCain, Romney, etc.
But he is missing a HUGE opportunity to ďendorseĒ Ron Paul. Heís 100% pro life and 100% pro Constitution.Posted by: Clell at October 12, 2007 9:12 AM
If a substantial number abandon the GOP for a third party, we may very well get Hillary. But, I have come to this decision over several years and several elections -- I have joined the Constitution Party and I encourage others to seek out that party which stands for their principles and views and beliefs. What we are used to is voting out of fear. We don't vote now for anyone, but against certain ones. And so we are willing to accept anyone from the GOP for fear that Hillary will become Tsarina, or whatever it is she has in mind.
Standing for something is far preferable to playing defense all the time. And what we get when we play defense is witnessed by what we have now -- George W. Bush, the closet socialist. I believe that if we had a substantial third party vote reflecting serious conservative ideals, it would force the GOP to take notice, but more importantly, it would show us all that serious change is possible if we pull together. What we can win this time with a substantial third party vote is confidence in the future and in ourselves. And it would inform also even Hillary that there is a ground swell out here that she may try to circumvent, but she can't ignore.
Personally, I think our best bet is to focus on the House of Representatives. It changes every two years, and progress could be made there faster and more seriously than anywhere else. But the presidential election is vital this time in the sense of building our own sense of power and confidence. It can be done if people are not afraid. Once we get over that, we can make progress in meaningful ways.