Horrible news: Dobson secretly abandons abortion pledge

That's a typical postion by the party faithful whether they be republican or democrat.

 

1. Secret??? Evidence that they've tried to hide this? Seems pretty out in the open to me.

2. Probably a lesson here for us, and that is never say never. If the choices in a close election are between an imperfect conservative candidate and the worst possible candidate of all time (Kerry) I would hope he would have the good sense to vote for the imperfect conservative.

3. Horrrible news? My goodness, why the drama? Can you show any evidence that James Dobson or Focus on the Family have changed their pro-life beliefs?

 

The party line outweighs conviction apparently.

 

That is the danger of what is happening now with conservative Christians and the GOP. We are almost captured to the extent that conservative southerners were to the Dems long after the Dems abandoned them for liberalism... and not entirely like blacks are now to the Dems.

When you lose your independence and are willing to sacrifice essential principles... you lose your impact.

If a politician doesn't oppose abortion then I oppose them on moral grounds but also on constitutional grounds. "Life" is the foundational right. If a person has no right to be protected from the whims or immoral judgments of another... then there is no foundational for "inalienable" rights.

For all the arguments concerning "personhood", abortionists still lose by the simple fact that we know scientifically and objectively that the "fetus" is a genetically unique, living human individual from shortly after conception... in any rational treatment of definitions, they are "persons".

 

I do not see how the letter supports the propositions stated so far.

The letter claimed that Dobson had to make a choice between two evils. Kerry or Bush. Dobson voted. Neither candidate was an absolute supporter of life. It was either vote, or not vote.

I would not consider it an abandonment but rather I would see it as a clarification of his stance in difficult times.

 

I voted for Bush too. I'm pro-life. But not voting, or voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning - independent, third-party, etc. - is a waste of a vote.
I didn't vote FOR Bush, really - I voted to keep Kerry OUT.

 

No vote is wasted. In fact, if enough third party votes were cast they could be very powerful.

Unlike Dr Dobson, I could not vote for a man who agreed to the murder of even one child.

 

Having gone over the matierial, I concur. The claim in the OP is unsubstantiated. In fact, I submit that it is grossly misleading.

 

I agree that there aren't going to be perfect candidates. I am satisfied that Bush's views are sufficient to classify him as "pro-life" and most certainly sufficient to help move the ball in the right direction judging from all of his judicial appointments.

But a protest vote is not a wasted vote. When the GOP runs pro-abortion candidates that win... they are encouraged to keep doing it. When they see a significant part of their base expressing an immutable principle by voting 3rd party or else not voting in that race then they respond positively.

 

There was a clear pro-life/ anti-gay choice (ironic usage) but he went with Bush, not as pro-life as he would have liked because he feared other issues would not be handled rightly.

That is a reasonable position to take, I have had to do the same thing many times before when I went to the polls.

This is why it makes so bleeping mad when he gets on his radio show and presents everything so black and white. A vote for Kerry is a vote against God. It is never that clear-cut in politics when there are so many differing issues demanding your attention. You do the best you can.

JD should focus his attention on helping the family and quit playing footsy with politians and telling other people how to vote, it's none of his business.

There is a bumper sticker in Colorado Springs "Focus on your own d*mn family" good advice if you ask me

 

BTW, Ross Perot drew enough voters away from the "moderate" Bush Sr to give us Bill Clinton and a Dem congress. The GOP responded with a real vision compared to the nutty stuff the Dems were doing with power- voila, the 94 Revolution.

If the GOP loses seats this time, they will be forced to look at corruption, "me too" liberalism on spending, and a general lack of progress on issues that matter to their base. They'd come back with more clarity and conservatism in 08... so it might be a good temporary set back.

 

What issue would you say Kerry took a "godly" position on?

If you are tempted to say something to do with wealth redistribution then please back it up with the scripture that says it is morally right to force SOMEONE ELSE to give THEIR money to those YOU determine are sufficiently needy because YOU make the judgment that THEY have too much.

 

I'm never, never, a single issue voter. Personally, I think that single issue voting is irresponsible. That said, I don't have the authority to accuse someone of being irresponsible if they chhose to vote that way. My opinion is strictly my opinion. An irresponsible vote is still preferable over no vote.

This, my friends, is why we're to vote our own conscience. But that also means we're forbidden from getting other people to vote our conscience instead of their own.

BTW, imo, Dobson would have done better to do what I do: Keep my voting choices private. They ain't no one's business.

 

Unless the law is changed to require a majority to win, any vote cast for a third party candidate is a vote for the greater of two evils. Since we don't require a majority vote to win, voting for any third party candidate is a vote for the Kerry's of the nation.

 

I'm not necessarily either. But pro-life is pre-requisite. It is a qualifier for further consideration.

If a candidate is pro-abortion then they have either made a political calculation, are willfully ignorant, or else have looked at the evidence but are so callous, immoral, or unreasonable that they won't change their minds. In any of those cases, they can't have my vote.

 

My point, Scott, is that pro-life is pre-requisite for you. It must not be considered a prerequisite for all Christians. I'm sure that it's one of many factors (as it is for me) that Christians weigh in the voting process, but to require that everyone make it their sole or primary priority is interfering with a person's right and responsibility to vote their own conscience.

 

oops double post

 

What issue would you say Kerry took a "godly" position on?

If you are tempted to say something to do with wealth redistribution then please back it up with the scripture that says it is morally right to force SOMEONE ELSE to give THEIR money to those YOU determine are sufficiently needy because YOU make the judgment that THEY have too much. </font>[/QUOTE]Well he is against the death penalty, but that really isn't the issue.

Voting is a very private matter and people vote for all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. If someone voted for Kerry that doesn't make them unchristian or evil and the notion that voting for Bush is a vote with God is equally stupid. JD took a hard stand and ended up backtracking and looking like a fool. Keep your nose out of my business that's all I'm saying!

 

For some people, that's a major issue. If it is, then they are permitted to vote their conscience on that issue if they so feel.

Exactly!! And we should repect a person's private voting choices. It's no one's business.