Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Dobson's shark circus

How many times can a man jump a shark? I think he did this a few times before, but I'll call it here. This has to be it, politically at least, for him.

Stand by; I'm calling fire on my own position. I am an Evangelical - albeit a libertarian one. That Free Will thingy and all. I will pray for you and your soul, but I won't judge your imperfections until I clear up all my own - and if you drink all I ask is you make mine a double. If you dance, I just ask you invite my wife to because I am a terrible dancer and would rather sit here and have a scotch with my unsaved friend.

Here is my problem with Dr. Dobson. The left side of the Republican Party has more or less supported the domination of the Party by the Right side. Good "big tent" Conservatives. There is now a leading candidate that may get the nomination that is on balance pro-"choice." Not an activists pro-"choice," but a conflicted one like many of his countrymen. He isn't perfect on gun rights either, like many of his countrymen. He isn't going to move the nation to the Left on either issue, and his taste in Judges will actually pull that branch to the right. I am not a single issue voter, but I understand that you have to make tough decisions some times to get the better of two imperfect outcomes.

What is critical at this point in our nation's history is national security and leadership. Holding back the growth of Socialist programs and high taxes. Those four things folded in with defending Freedom should be right there on your list - especially when you have Sen. Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Obama (D-IL) leading the pack.

Why would anyone decide to go the Perot route to push another Clinton into the White House? When you listen to him, hear all the "I" in that. It is about him, and he doesn't speak for me.

Here is another one who I think speaks for not-as-many as he thinks. Via TheCampaignSpot, Tony Perkins.

“Yes, there will be some evangelicals who vote for him. In my experience, it’s about half and half. … In the eyes of many social conservatives, there’s little distinction between [Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani]. Clearly there’s some distinction, they’re not identical. But when you consider those who have come into the political process on ideological path or issues path, not a party path… These are people who are not there to advance a political party. They are there to advance causes. If they’re indistinguishable on so many issues that are vital to these voters, it’s hard to see why you should vote for one instead of the other.”...We’re a third, roughly of the Republican party and we’ve had a good relationship with fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives over the past 30 years. We need a candidate who is acceptable on our policies, as well as fiscal policy and defense and foreign policy. We’ve tried to be respectful to the other members of our coalition by not backing a candidate who isn’t respectful of their priorities; now we’d like them to be respectful by not backing a candidate who isn’t respectful of our priorities.
You cannot make the perfect be the enemy of the good. If they think that there would be no difference in policy results between a Clinton and Rudy Administration, then they are acting stupid (not), blind (possibly), or like an ideological bully (probably). Judging them? No. Their actions? Yes.

Either way, I don't have time for that - at this time in its history - neither does the USA. I not voting for Deacon anyway.

Hat tip HotAir.

No comments: