Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

More so-cons and RG

James C. Dobson (everyone I know calls him "Dr. Dobson") adds his two cents’ worth about the upcoming election, in the NYT, no less.

I would be hesitant to urge anyone to support a third party. After all, eight years of the first Clinton gave us Breyer, Ginsburg, and the evolution of Anthony Kennedy. Is anyone really prepared for the judicial nominees HRC will send up to the Senate and for the damage they can do for the next thirty years?

Discussions - 11 Comments

I voted for Perot. I regret that vote immensely.

It appears some of the right wants to make the same mistake ... again.

Judges are the trump card the GOP uses every four years to keep conservatives in line. Isn't that prima facie evidence that the political world is upside down? We are VOTING on the basis of who the President will APPOINT.



Conservatives should spend much more time debunking judicial review and judicial supremacy, and less time worrying about judicial appointments. To inordinately worry about judicial appointments reinforces the current flawed system. We should not concede the legitimacy of jr and js.

Also, it is a almost a foregone conclusion that the vast majority of Republican will vote to confirm whoever HRC nominates. Like they did with Ginsberg and Breyer. Why can we not count on Republicans in the Senate to filibuster any HRC appointment?

Exactly. Dobson is brain dead suggesting a 3d party candidacy. If social conservatives desired to throw their weight around, {which is not unwise politically by the way...}, they should have poured millions of dollars into the Republican primary battle between then Congressman Pat Toomey and Senator Specter. Bouncing Specter in a primary fight is the way you get attention. Not going off in some fit of pique because the ideal candidate doesn't exist, or won't step forward. For good or for ill, we've little choice in the matter, because the ideal isn't in the race. So we have to make do with the best we've got. And with Giuliani, that ain't half bad.

You guys should check your history. When the two major political parties both ran pro-choice-on-slavery candidates for President in 1852, enough anti-slavery voters either stayed home or voted for a new Free Soil party candidate, to cause the Whigs -- the party that otherwise would've been able to count on the anti-slavery vote - to get their clocks cleaned: 254 electoral votes to 42. By the next presidential election four years later, the Whig party had been totally destroyed. Within 8 years, a new party -- created in opposition to slavery -- won the presidency. The fate of the old Whig party will be the same fate of the GOP if it nominates Giuliani, or any other pro-abortion-rights candidate. And the electoral fate of the Whig party in the 1852 election will be the GOP's same fate in 2008 if it nominates Giuliani. You call Dobson "brain dead"; I would call him principled. I would also say that he's advocating a strategy that worked on the slavery issue and will work again if need be. I, for one, am glad that enough of our fellow citizens cared enough about slavery to withhold their votes from both major parties back in 1852. Abortion is the modern-day counterpart to slavery. Those who dream of marginalizing pro-lifers will discover that if you leave no room for them in the GOP, the GOP will, like the old Whigs, first get crushed at the polls, then cease to exist.

Pursuing a strategy of defeat is not principled. It's the choice of a martyr, who desires to make the pain of his struggle and defeat an oblation upon an altar of sacrifice. It's religious. It's not political. Dobson is very much confused on the matter. Which isn't surprising to me.

In the movie 12 O'Clock high, squadron commander General Savage tells a pastor "your area is sin, in the future confine yourself to that theater of operation." Dobson tossing his weight around is not a problem to me. The manner and the timing thereof however, VERY MUCH is. George W. Bush and his father did more damage to our party than Rudy could possible do. Let's bear that in mind.

I agree that "pursuing a strategy of defeat is not principled" -- which is exactly why the GOP needs to nominate Fred Thompson, not Giuliani.

There is no way I'd ever vote for neocons like Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Gingrich or Romney. Unless a conservative gets the nomination who's tough on immigration (Tancredo, Paul or Hunter), I'm voting third party, probably Constitution Party or America First Party.

FYI - Fred "Council on Foreign Relations" Thompson is a neocon through and through. Also, N.B.: Lincoln was a left-wing dictator.

George W. Bush and his father did more damage to our party than Rudy could possible do.

You are a cock-eyed optimist. How is the Republican Party doing in New York these days? What hath Rudy wrought?

How about this ...

The Republicans in Congress, with there apparent desire to be seen as supposed moderates (especially the weak ones in the Senate, which are most), are truly the reason why the GOP may be having a difficult time.

For example, just exactly how long did it take for some Repub in Congress to counter the Dems most recent slam against Rush and how many have responded?

The answer is telling.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/11148