James Dobson abandons Giuliani and supports a third party candidate? He’s loud about his dissatisfaction that Giuliani is leading the Republican field. He hates the fact that Giuliani has policies that are closer to Clinton than to social conservatives. He will only accept an anti-choice candidate. He doesn’t trust that Giuliani will appoint Justices that are conservative, based on Giuliani’s record that’s probably a good bet. So James Dobson threatens promises to break free from the Republican party if Giuliani is elected the nominee.
What will this mean for the GOP? Considering that exit polls on election day in 2004 showed that 22% of voters labeled themselves Evangelical Christian, it would probably secure a Democratic win. That is, if Dobson could muster enough of them to defy their ingrained Republican voting tradition.
I was watching Face the Nation on Sunday and the guest was Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council. He appeared to back peddle a bit on Dobson’s statement by stating, “What we said last week was more of a proclamation of principle rather than a declaration of intent.” He then stated that “If the party chooses to break its commitment to creating a culture of life, we’re not going to go in that direction with the party.” during a conference call on Thursday with reporters. To me this sounds pretty much like an intention.
On Face the Nation, Perkins went on to say that the Conservative movement is comparable to a three legged stool the Fiscal Conservatives, the Foreign Policy Conservatives, and the Social Conservatives. He implored the other 2/3 of the party to throw their support to the Social Conservatives and their anti-choice agenda. Without all three legs they will “impale” themselves. Thursday, Perkins stated that he believed roughly half of the Religious Right would vote for Giuliani anyway but that’s still a lot of votes to lose.
So what will this mean for the Democrats? Probably a bigger win over the Republican nominee. Unless, that is, Mitt Romney starts climbing faster. He appears to be the Evangelicals’ favorite at this time with Perkins stating Thursday, “he’s one of the strongest on our issues. It’s true he has had a change of position on these issues. I do believe they’re genuine. I do not see him going back.”
Add Comment![[Digg]](../../../wp-includes/images/digg.gif){kind=small}
![[Technorati]](../../../wp-includes/images/technorati.gif){kind=small}
![[del.icio.us]](./../../wp-includes/images/delicious.gif){kind=small}
![[Reddit]](./../../wp-includes/images/reddit.gif){kind=small}
![[StumbleUpon]](./../../wp-includes/images/stumbleupon.gif){kind=small}
![[Furl]](./../../wp-includes/images/furl.gif){kind=small}
![[Blinklist]](./../../wp-includes/images/blinklist.gif){kind=small}
![[Newsvine]](./../../wp-includes/images/newsvine.gif){kind=small}
2007-10-12 14:35:26
I see Hillary as having overwhelming negatives. So much so that any of the republican front-runners might do well against her. She is not warm and friendly, like Bill Clinton.
James Dobson is a respectful guy with strong opinions. I think he is a little frustrated with the current choices in he republican party. I share his feelings. I wish we had more candidates who will defend us from hate crime legislation and redefinition of marriage and so on, and so on. The present danger of hate crimes legislation is its use to charge and put in jail those who speak up about gay issues. Marriage has worked for the past 6,000 years because of a committed husband and wife. Now that is under attack for a more promiscuous and less monogamous counterfeit version, in my opinion. Thanks for comment section.
2007-10-12 15:42:43
Thanks for the comments Sean. Hillary’s critics have been trying to play up her “negatives” since she ran in New York and she was able to win handily there. While she lacks some of the charisma of her husband I think she is stronger on policy and has better character values.
With our current divorce rates I would be hesitant to say that marriage is working. If your concern is with promiscuity and monogamy wouldn’t it be counter productive to prevent any couples from getting married? It seems to me that allowing homosexual couples to get married would be more monogamous and less promiscuous than not. I would be interested in hearing some thoughts on that.
2007-10-13 14:50:53
The gay definition of a committed marriage and the straight definition of a committed marriage are two different things. Examine the stats and note the differences. A Dutch Study indicated that while over 3/4 of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The study found that “committed” homosexual couples have an average of 8 sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. Another study in the Netherlands, A gay-friendly nation, found that the average lifespan of a homosexual couples’ relationship to be 1 1/2 years.
I am interested in strenghthening marriages in order to give children a healthy, stable home-life. I also want marriage to succeed so that men and women can experience a more emotionally healthy life. I just don’t see the gay idea of marriage adding anything constructive to marriage.
2007-10-13 16:17:19
Sean, can you provide a link or reference for these studies? Most studies that I have seen have not had those types of stats for marital fidelity.
Thanks
2007-10-13 17:39:39
Yes, I quoted the stats from Dr. Maria Xiridou’s 2003 study of homosexual men in Amsterdam. This was published in the journal AIDS vol 17 p 1031.
http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/r.....yfv5GqDmVS!-1323538283!181195628!8091!-1
Thanks.
2007-10-15 08:25:53
Sean,
I read through the survey you cited, thank you for providing a source. In trying to find a similar survey for America, which I believe is more sexually conservative over all than most of Europe, I had a much harder time. I did find a survey from the Partners Task Force that you can read the summary of HERE.
This survey shows very different numbers, for homosexuals in America. For instance:
SEXUAL AGREEMENTS
Women(%) Men(%)
Monogamy 91 63
Monogamy w/agreed
exceptions 7 26
Non-monogamy 3 11
FREQUENCY OF BREAKING SEXUAL AGREEMENTS
Women(%) Men(%)
Never 90 63
Rarely 8 28
Sometimes 1 8
Often <1 2
PARTNER'S ADMITTED FREQUENCY OF BREAKING SEXUAL AGREEMENTS
Women(%) Men(%)
Never 93 73
Rarely 7 21
Sometimes <1 6
Often <1 <1
In America 25% of our population has been divorced. For Evangelical Christians that number is much higher, 34% in fact and 29% for Baptists. This is according to a Barna survey whose summary is located at HERE.
I found this interesting as Evangelical Christians are among the loudest voices for not allowing same-sex marriage.
I do not see how a same-sex marital union would in any way take away from marriage. They are people, adults, and I feel they should have the same rights as any other adult in America.
2007-10-15 12:32:39
I looked at the surveys you provided. That is interesting data. I see much room for improvement in keeping families together and mom and dad married for life. Some of the fault lies with the concept of no-fault divorce laws. And most of the blame belongs to the husbands and wives who divorce. You know all that. No one expects a marriage to last long in light of adultery by the spouse. Divorce and marital problems are a crisis in America. It shouldn’t be this way.
2007-11-27 16:02:45
I didn’t read your article but I did a search with “find on this page” Ron Paul…just talked to Jesus this morning…He told me if you didn’t mention Ron Paul it was a sin. Good luck.