24 Oct 07
Originally posted by darthmixI think you are right to some degree. However, there will be those who do not vote for him specifically because of his social issues. The question then becomes, will it cost him the nomination/Presidency?
Guiliani will get the support of the Christian right if they think he's their best chance of avoiding a Hillary presidency. Regardless of what James Dobson says, I think most values voters will hold their noses and vote for him if they decide he's their best shot of beating her in the general.
24 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI wonder why the Republican party seems to be a more palatable target than the Democratic party. Any speculations? Perhaps the Republican party has more in common with the Libertarians than with Democrats?
Ron Paul seems to think Libertarians can sneak in and take over the Republicans. Maybe it's because you guys have already been suckered in by the religious right. It makes you look easily...let's say, swayed by a position that you won't favor after seeing it in action.
Or, maybe there are just a lot of Republicans who are deep down a lot like Libertarians.
Or maybe he just has no chance.
24 Oct 07
1 edit
I think that Rudy will get the nomination and that most of the "Religious Right" folks will vote for him in the general election. I think most of them will realize that Rudy is closer to their core values than is Hillary.
If James Dobson can encourage enough Christians to vote for a third-party candidate or just stay home, however, then Hillary will almost for sure win the general election, IMO.
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerFrom what I hear he is doing just that. So that being the case, you are saying that Hillary is as good as elected?
If James Dobson can encourage enough Christians to vote for a third-party candidate or just stay home, however, then Hillary will almost for sure win the general election, IMO.[/b]
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyYes. The good Dr. Dobson will be the one primarily responsible for the election of Hillary. Ironic, isn't it? I love these people who cut off their nose to spite their face.
From what I hear he is doing just that. So that being the case, you are saying that Hillary is as good as elected?
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerThe US should compel all of its citizens to turn out to vote. It prevents extremists from either side getting in. I know those in the US see compulsory voting as an affront to their liberty, but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and if the vast majority stay home how on earth are normal people promoting normal policies ever going to take centre stage?
Yes. The good Dr. Dobson will be the one primarily responsible for the election of Hillary. Ironic, isn't it? I love these people who cut off their nose to spite their face.
It works downunder and it keeps them(the politicians) honest. If less than 50-60% turn out to vote, then the chances are that those motivated enough to be registered are probably highly ideologically driven also with the result that the candidates that can be elected end up having to serve very narrow interests.
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by kmax87I want as few people as possible voting! I don't want some uninformed drunk staggering to the polls because the law says he has to to the polls cancelling out my vote!
The US should compel all of its citizens to turn out to vote. It prevents extremists from either side getting in. I know those in the US see compulsory voting as an affront to their liberty, but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and if the vast majority stay home how on earth are normal people promoting normal policies ever going to take centre stage ...[text shortened]... the result that the candidates that can be elected end up having to serve very narrow interests.
(Hey, what am I worrying about? Drunks probably vote the same way I do!) 🙂
24 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by gaychessplayerIndeed. I heard Dr. Dobson being interviewed with Hannity on the radio the other day and Hannity was pleading with Dobson using similar logic, however, to no avail.
Yes. The good Dr. Dobson will be the one primarily responsible for the election of Hillary. Ironic, isn't it? I love these people who cut off their nose to spite their face.
From Dr. Dobsons point of view abortion is almost equivalent to the holocaust. Therefore, all the other issues pail in comparison. What is ironic, however, is that these politicians are powerless to change the laws on abortion. The only hope is to place people on the Supreme Court who will change the laws. What is ironic about even that, however, is that now there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, but nothing has changed. I think this is because any precedent such as Roe vs. Wade is not easy to overturn. From what I hear the hope is that the states will decide such matters. As for me, I would like the states to have more power than they do. That way you can decide where you want to live based on such laws. For example, if you are a conservative, move to a conservative state that has low taxes and abortion is outlawed. On the other hand, if you are a liberal move to the left coast and see which state fairs better instead of everyone being forced down the same path.
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyThe Republicans know that they've got a lock on the right (Christian or otherwise) and so there's no particular reason for them to angle for that vote. They'll look to the center because that's where the elections are decided. Folk's on the right will vote for them, not because they'll get what they want from the Republicans but because they are afraid that they'll get more of what they DON'T want from the Democrats.
Just out of curiosity, how many people here think that Giulliani can be nominated without support from the Christian right?
Secondly, if he is nominated, does this spell the beginning of the end for the Christian right?
Democrats enjoy the same privilege with the poor. Democrats aren't going to do a damn thing for them because they don't have to. They'll get their votes either way.
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyMy daughter was born just over two months premature. I held her, fed her, listened and talked with her, etc. when she was unfathomably tiny, and I can assure you that she was just as much a human being at that age as she is now, and I can see no logically consistent reason to think that her life was any less worthy of legal protections.
Indeed. I heard Dr. Dobson being interviewed with Hannity on the radio the other day and Hannity was pleading with Dobson using similar logic, however, to no avail.
From Dr. Dobsons point of view abortion is almost equivalent to the holocaust. Therefore, all the other issues pail in comparison....
I don't consider myself particularly anti-abortion--in fact, I'd generally be in favor of "choice" in the case of early term abortions. But as you are approaching third trimester I would argue that Dr. Dobson might well be more correct than he's given credit for.
That not withstanding, I think it is highly unlikely that Dr. D. will be casting more than one vote in our presidential election. Everyone else will be making up their own mind.
24 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by leisurelyslothIt seems that as always its the swinging voters in the middle, whether you term them middle class or not, but those who are not ideologically pinned to any party but can be swayed either through fear or by the promise of a big carrot that will determine the outcome of election 2008.
The Republicans know that they've got a lock on the right (Christian or otherwise) and so there's no particular reason for them to angle for that vote. They'll look to the center because that's where the elections are decided. Folk's on the right will vote for them, not because they'll get what they want from the Republicans but because they are afr damn thing for them because they don't have to. They'll get their votes either way.
The Democrats in this day and age must always be on a hiding to nothing, because invariably they ask the electorate to think beyond their own immediate needs. Whether that be on issues like the environment or on health care reform, the cynical view is that it will always cost a bit more than a Republican alternative.
Are people still prepared to be a bit altruistic in terms of how government spends their money, or have we reached a turning point where for a Democratic government to be elected they would virtually have to run on a platform that would place them so far to the right, that they would hardly be any different to a Republican government apart from their rhetoric?
25 Oct 07
Originally posted by leisurelyslothI admire Dr. Dobson a great deal, as do many other voters. If the election is close, the Christian conservatives persuaded by Dr. Dobson to not vote for Gulianni (if he gets the nomination) could quite likely swing to election to Ms. Clinton (if she gets the nomination). I can't believe that Dr. Dobson would rather live in an America with Clinton as president rather than one with Gulianni as president.
I think it is highly unlikely that Dr. D. will be casting more than one vote in our presidential election. Everyone else will be making up their own mind.
25 Oct 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI think Dr. D's view is that one must first clean ones house before going to clean another mans house.
I admire Dr. Dobson a great deal, as do many other voters. If the election is close, the Christian conservatives persuaded by Dr. Dobson to not vote for Gulianni (if he gets the nomination) could quite likely swing to election to Ms. Clinton (if she gets the nomination). I can't believe that Dr. Dobson would rather live in an America with Clinton as president rather than one with Gulianni as president.
25 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyIf he thinks that, then Dr. Dobson's reasoning skills ought to be called into question on this issue. You can clean up your own party without letting the other party, which is even worse, take power.
I think Dr. D's view is that one must first clean ones house before going to clean another mans house.