Dobson: I'll be sitting this one out: The Swamp
 
The Swamp
-
Posted February 5, 2008 12:40 PM
The Swamp

by James Oliphant

Today may not be the apocalypse for many on the Religious Right, but to paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones in "No Country For Old Men," it will do until the apocalypse gets here.

James Dobson, the leader of Focus on the Family, announced today that he would not vote in the general election if John McCain is the Republican nominee. Dobson is one of a bevy of social conservatives who find themselves dismayed on the prospect of a party led by McCain.

Appearing on the Laura Ingraham radio show today, Dobson said:

"But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I'm affiliated. They do reflect, however, my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country."

Here is a link to hear all of Dobson's anti-endorsement, as told to Ingraham (who also has no love for McCain).

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

What a silly little nutball.


See ya later, hatemonger! To paraphrase John McCain, "we want the support of and care deeply about religious voters, however, we will not bend to the demands of their self-appointed leaders."


Gay people have families too.


All this, hand-wringing to out right biterness, that started with Huckabee and now reaches its height with McCain, is pretty funny to me. Alan Colmes, the milquetoast punching bag of Fox News, just made Mary Maitlin look ridiculous with her pathetic insistence that Romney is who the GOP should rally behind. So much is coming home to roost for Republicans. They are so uncomfortable with voters actually voicing their opinion as opposed to people like Rush Windbag directing them to a pre- ordained candidate, ironic from the party that wants to spread democracy in the Middle East. Americans realize that the the last 7 years have been a sham, and they are fed up.


As a conservative who supports Senator McCain, I find it "sad and melancholy" that Dr. Dobson, a 71-year-old man of learning, could act in such a childlike manner. Well, OK, Dr. Dobson, if you insist on making a "my candidate or no candidate" angry-child threat to bolt the Party in the fall, then good. Don't vote for Senator McCain. Goodbye. In the fall, find the inevitable ultra-right wing fringe candidate and vote for him. And then when your candidate gets only one tenth of one percent of the vote, you can congratulate yourself on your ideological purity, head down to your backyard bomb shelter, smoke a good cigar and think about how the world has been going to hell since Bob Taft lost to Ike. The rest of us Judeo-Christian conservatives, I assure you, will have a great seat at the table and will reap the rewards when the GOP ticket triumphs. If you'd rather be a witness to history than an active participant, that's your call.


Ann Coulter on Fox News right now -- "I'll fight McCain through the convention". Can these ridiculous people take themselves any more seriously?


Then don't vote, ClownBoy. See if anyone cares.


So the leader of a far-right, activist group, that would have the federal government decide how individuals should use their conscience, will not vote is the general election.

GOOD!!

Look for other conservatives to do likewise if McCain is nominated. The democratic nominee will have a cake-walk to the White House and the 8 year nightmare and assault on the constitution will be over.


McSurge McCain has killed Conservatism...

Thanks old man!


What is it about these religious zealots? McCain is with them on abortion. I have not seen him demanding gay marriage, he simply values federalism enough to decide that gay marriage is not a federal issue. Some states, after all, are allowing civil unions as a result of legislative choice.


Dobson's silence in the face of more obvious pro-life candidates (Huckabee, Thompson, Hunter and Tancredo) will not be helped by another last-minute screed against McCain.

He is being played by Romney and Laura Ingraham who have taken his words on Super Tuesday as an endorsement for Romney.


in response to Jeff's paraphrase of John MCain ""we want the support of and care deeply about religious voters, however, we will not bend to the demands of their self-appointed leaders."

I say as a conservative, We'd like to support John McCain, but he's been too busy bending to the demands of the leaders on the other side of the aisle.


Oh, give it a rest guys. This guy is just speaking for himself. That's his right. No one is required to listen to him. So all the angry talk isn't really warranted.


Every time that Johnny D. talks about "the worst the world has to offer, the Loony Left", we can hold this guy up as what the Right has. Dobson and his ilk are REALLY the worst the world has to offer.


John W., we "guys" would "give it a rest" if Dr. Dobson had made his pronouncement in the privacy of his own home. But the fact is, he has spent decades building himself into a very public and powerful figure whose stock in trade is advising right-wing evangelical Christians on the "moral" way to vote, the "moral" way to watch TV, you name it. And now he goes out of his way to appear on the right-wing airwaves to denounce Senator McCain and obviously attempt to convince millions of Christian conservatives to sit on their hands in the fall, all because he's boo-hooing that his candidate may not be the nominee. "Just speaking for himself," you say? Hardly.


Let's hope Dobson and all the CINO's (Christian in name only) sit out this election. The country badly needs a break from their hypocrisy.


Bobin, I don't agree with Dobson on this. I also don't quite agree with Ingraham or Limbaugh in regard to McCain. I didn't vote for McCain today. But if he is the GOP nominee, I will vote for him and i won't need to hold my nose either. I've disagreed with the senator on several major issues, but he'll still get my support.
In regard to who is the worst mankind has to offer? Well, I'll take Dobson over you, John E., John Chuckman, Janet, op109 or any of the other Loons that truly make up the Garbage Dump Society on the Left.


Tommy, the things you and Jerry White say expose your true agenda "bending to the will of the other side of aisle," or as Jerry White calls democrats, "the enemy" is simply not a constructive way to run a government.

John McCain will get things done and work with our democrat friends. Yes, that's right, I said friends. We may disagree about what's best for this country, but we shouldn't disagree so much that it shuts down government and makes compromise a dirty word.

McCain might not be 100% conservative all the time, but I promise you he won't back down on the things that truly matter like Supreme Court appointees, national defense, CUTTING WASTEFUL SPENDING, and shrinking a bloated federal government. In case you haven't noticed, we already have a president that won't cut spending. I know McCain will.


Oooooooooooooooooohhh Johnny!!! Take Dobson over me and the rest of the sane liberals on this board?? Call us garbage? Well, if you want to play that game "sticks and stones may break our bones, but words never hurt us". So nyah-nyah on you - run home to mommy so she can help you blow your nose.

Sounds like a note of desperation in your post over the upcoming election, as you watch your beloved GOP disintergrate overnight thanks to Rush, Sean and the rest.


Listened to Dobson for years and am surprised he is wimping out. There is someone that he agrees with 100%, but is blind to it....I guess he's been listening to the media also.

Yea,I'm sure all of you will be happy that "your" man wins president. Be prepared to get your national i.d. card (with all of your private info), open the borders between Canada US and Mexico, change to the amero dollar, put all of your hard-earned money in one big pot for someone else to decide how to spend it. Do you work hard for your money? Why give it to the idiots who don't work? If someone needs help, why not let the community help them instead of government. At least you know who it is going to. Read the constitution instead of listening to the 'talking heads' on television. No one talks about the CFR that everyone is a member or going to use them for advisors. Fron Paul is the only one that is not a part of it. He's not a kook....he just won't carry Bush's and Clinton's baton. Google CFR and then vote.


Tim1979:

Is he holding a gun at anyone's head? No. So, lighten up. You make it sound like millions of robots are going to snap-to at his command, thereby thwarting the natural, primary process. It just isn't so. You take him more seriously than Evangelicals do.

When it comes to politics, Evangelicals understand that some self-styled Evangelical “leader” doesn't have the ability or right to dictate matters of choice or conscience to them. As a matter of fact, those "public" Evangelical leaders like Dobson, Robertson and the like have a lot less sway in the Evangelical community than you and many other people might think. Evangelicals don't have the equivalent of a Pope. And, if they did, Dobson wouldn’t be it. Local leaders have a lot more sway, and they keep to themselves and their churches for the most part.

I’m an Evangelical but I don’t listen to Dobson or Robertson or anyone like them – ever. (I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh either; so I guess I’m unique.) In fact, I totally disagree with Dobson regarding his agendum of social conservatism. For instance, I don’t believe social conservatism is appropriate at the federal level for domestic policy. I believe, in accordance with the principles of federalism, that the States ought to decide such issues. In which case, I don’t see how social conservatism is really important for the job of President. What we need is a fiscal conservative in the White House – and either John McCain or Ron Paul would fit the bill in that regard. Very few people in Congress, if any, have as good a record on fighting big government and wasteful spending as those two.

I am left up to my own devices on whom to choose. That’s because even the ministers and elders of my church haven’t weighed in on advocating for or against any candidate. I personally favor Ron Paul right now. But, like John D., I could end up backing John McCain if he wins the nomination. Either that or I’ll just stay home on election day.


Dobson is a kook. The Dems are "virulently anti-family" only if you judge it based on the total number of new families they've started (after divorcing their wives/husbands). The Republicans that Dobson so strongly favors had a commanding lead in that category before Giuliani and Thompson dropped out. Nothing says "sanctity of marriage" like divorcing your wife and marrying a hot younger woman, right James?


this website is so well named.


In regard to who is the worst mankind has to offer? Well, I'll take Dobson over you, John E., John Chuckman, Janet, op109 or any of the other Loons that truly make up the Garbage Dump Society on the Left.

Posted by: John D | February 5, 2008 3:13 PM


I'm your worst nightmare, Lil' Johnny Quacksalot!

R.I.P. - Conservatism


But, like John D., I could end up backing John McCain if he wins the nomination. Either that or I’ll just stay home on election day.

Posted by: John W. | February 5, 2008 4:23 PM

In any event, McCain’s cluelessness in this matter is just one more reason I find him unfit to serve as President. Its bad enough that we’ve had Duh’bya around for eight years trashing the Constitution. We don’t need more of it now.

Ron Paul in ’08.

Posted by: John W. | November 12, 2007 7:06 PM

John W. is willing to support a man he has proclaimed "unfit to serve as President" simply because he is a Republican.

Partisanship above country. Sad. Very sad.


Oh du wittle fundy jack@$$ doesn't wan to pway?


The Catholic Bishops advised voters to vote their morals. Thats code for voting against the partial-birth abortion tolerating Democrat candidates. That too was covered here, wasn't it?


Observer:

You should re-name yourself the stalker. You have been stalking me, but you are singularly the most unobservant person I have ever encountered.

I said I could end up backing John McCain, not that I back him right now or that I plan to vote for him. [Hint: I voted for Ron Paul in today’s primary.] I also said I might also simply stay at home instead of voting for anyone – with reference to the election in November. You failed to observe that added qualification. With that qualification, I hardly call my position backing McCain under all circumstances, or placing “partisanship above country” as you falsely and absurdly suggest.

What would make me back McCain is Hillary's nomination by the Democratic Party. Under those circumstances, I would be voting for McCain to make sure the worst possible candidate did not make it to the White House. In my view, nothing could be worse than Hillary election to the office of President.

So, no, my choice would not be dictated by the fact that McCain is a Republican. It would be dictated by the fact that Hillary is a lying socialist whose blind ambition to become President is driven by her ego and thirst for power. I am convinced she doesn’t give a rat’s butt about the rank and file American. Despite all of McCain’s faults, I would at least know that I would be voting for someone who would not brook a further slide into continental socialism, and who would exercise some fiscal restraint. So, in my heart of hearts, I believe that a vote for McCain against Hillary would be putting the welfare of my country above everything.


Despite all of McCain’s faults, I would at least know that I would be voting for someone who would not brook a further slide into continental socialism, and who would exercise some fiscal restraint. So, in my heart of hearts, I believe that a vote for McCain against Hillary would be putting the welfare of my country above everything.

Posted by: John W. | February 5, 2008 7:14 PM


W,

Tell your lies to your Pastor, we don't want to hear about how you compromise yourself and your vote in your head.


John E:

I am not making compromises. I would be making ethical choices to avert the worst disaster. That's more than I can say for your entirely unexamined acceptance of the idiotic ideology if the Democratic Party.


John W-

You said McCain was "unfit to serve" with no provisos or qualifications previously. That's a pretty clear staement. Now you're adding provisos and qualifications.

In any event, it's interesting how that's changed as he's gotten closer to the nomination. I wonder what your views of him will be by November? I'm predicting "The greatest american".


James Dobson is also the same guy who called for the burning of Harry Potter books and who broke the news that Spongebob Squarepants was "promoting a gay agenda."


Observer:

You are right. I didn’t mention any provisos or qualifications regarding my previously stated views of John McCain. Then again, since you apparently don’t remember, allow me to remind you of another salient fact:

Hillary didn’t figure into any of my prior comments about John McCain either.

Had I been asked at the time, I would have stated that I believe Hillary is the worst possible choice for President, and that I would vote for the Republican nominee regardless of who it was, including McCain, to insure that she never got elected. If, on the other hand, the Democratic nominee is someone other than Hillary, I might just stay home if I don’t like the Republican nominee. But, if the former circumstances occur, and Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, my vote won’t be for McCain or whoever gets the Republican nomination as much as it will be against her to fulfill my patriotic duty to protect my country from her. That’s hardly what I would call an endorsement for McCain as “the Greatest American.”


"That's more than I can say for your entirely unexamined acceptance of the idiotic ideology if the Democratic Party.

Posted by: John W. | February 5, 2008 7:51 PM"

Ladies and Gentlemen, the real John W.


In regard to who is the worst mankind has to offer? Well, I'll take Dobson over you, John E., John Chuckman, Janet, op109 or any of the other Loons that truly make up the Garbage Dump Society on the Left.

Posted by: John D | February 5, 2008 3:13 PM

I'm shocked by this hateful diatribe, Johnny Tantrum. As a Christian, shouldn't you be turning the other cheek and praying for your enemies' immortal souls?


* * * * *

Ladies and Gentlemen, the real John W.

Posted by: C.Morris | February 5, 2008 8:59 PM

That’s right C. Morris, and I’m not going to budge. Only in an alternate universe could someone credibly, and with a straight face, claim that today’s Democratic Party is the same Party that gave us JFK or even LBJ. Heck, it’s hardly the same party that gave us Bill Clinton.

Up until the end of the last century, nobody, and I mean nobody in the Democratic Party, would have proposed as much deconstruction in the social order, or as much Big Brother in government, as we now see advertised by the leading Democratic candidates and organizations. Most mainstream Democrats from JFK’s day would be Embarrassed and ASHAMED to be in the same room as a person spouting the vanguard views of today’s Democrats. There is an insuperable chasm between those views. Needless to say there is an even broader and deeper chasm between the radical views of today’s Democrats and those of today’s conservatives.

I am not saying that Republicans have all the right answers. There are many Republicans in the White House and Congress who should not be in office, and who should never hold public office ever again. There are many Republicans both inside and outside the political process who have some very wrong-headed ideas about many things. However, there is still a set of core values cherished by conservatives (as opposed to neo-cons) that reach back to the very foundation of this country, and which represent the best ideas this country has ever offered to mankind.

In contrast, the present Democratic Ideology is entirely detached from the ideals and principles upon which this country is founded. They do not, for instance, cherish basic freedom, individual initiative, or the notion that an individual has rights to assert against the government and every other person in the world. Many of those cherished rights, by the best laid plans of Democrats and men, are doomed to extinction. In their place, the Democrats propose to collectivize society, so that individuals have few individual rights, and no rights against the STATE. By promoting increased dependence upon the State, and by inculcating the population with a correct set of social ideals, they will wean people off of any notion of individualism, and that individual achievement and initiative are valuable ideals. Once they have succeeded in this, and they aren’t far now, freedom will no longer matter.

So yes, the ideology of the Democratic Party, as it currently stands, is idiotic. It cannot be viewed as anything else.


"Hillary didn’t figure into any of my prior comments about John McCain either."

You were unaware previously that Hillary stood a good chance of getting the nomination?

Just to clarify John, if Obama gets the nomination, is McCain unfit then? What if Edwards had gotten it? Is there any Democrat that you find more fit to be President than McCain?


Interesting (not) debate between John W, who clearly shows intelligent though, and John E and the Observer, folks who clearly do not show any intelligent thought.

I certainly wouldn't go as far as John W in saying McCain is unfit to be president. But I will say The Queen B certainly is unfit as is Obama. Neither has any qualifications nor any experience to be president. And since Hillary is part of one of the greatest crime syndicates, her nomination would clearly be an abomination.


The Queen B certainly is unfit as is Obama. Neither has any qualifications nor any experience to be president. And since Hillary is part of one of the greatest crime syndicates, her nomination would clearly be an abomination.

Posted by: John D | February 5, 2008 10:49 PM


Gee, Johnny Dope has Clinton Derangement Syndrome, who would've thunk it?


Observer,

You ask: "You were unaware previously that Hillary stood a good chance of getting the nomination?"

My previous comments about Senator McCain – which you keep quoting – had nothing to do with the relative merits of other candidates. The matter under discussion was the McCain-Feingold BCRA, and how McCain’s support for it reflected poorly on his understanding of, and commitment to protecting, First Amendment rights. Tossing Hillary or any other candidate into the discussion would have been entirely off-topic. In context, there was simply no reason to bring up Hillary. Go back and read what I wrote. This should have been obvious even to you.

To answer your second question, I will simply say that I would probably stay home and not vote if McCain becomes the Republican candidate and Obama wins the Democratic nomination. In saying this, I am not saying that I would ever vote for a Democrat, or that any candidate would be better than any other (except that anyone would be better than Hillary). It’s just that, with that configuration, I don’t think I would necessarily favor anyone enough to actively support them, and I wouldn’t care as much about the outcome as I would if Hillary were the Democratic candidate. I will decline to make any further comparisons, or give any further reasons, because I don’t think I have given those ideas enough thought to expressing my views on them.

Just to illustrate the point, though, I didn’t vote in the Presidential election in 2004. I didn’t vote then because I didn’t like Duh’bya after his first term performance, so I wasn’t motivated to vote for him again. On the other hand, I had no strong belief that Kerry and Edwards would be any better or worse. There was simply no one to vote for, and “none of the above” wasn’t an option on the ballot. In my view, elections can sometimes be so “blah” that participation just isn’t worth it.


John W.,

You're not backing down. Democrats=dirty, pinko, Commies. Who said Mccarthyism is dead?


Well, dt, I would certainly say the Clintons and their political operation (includes Carville, Begala, Emmanuel)and the Chicago machine that pushed Obama to power (Rezko, Daley, Stroger, Blagojevich) actually do equal dirty politics, plain and simple. There's a reason these people have the reputations they have.

As for democrats in general, they do not equal dirty politics. Many of them are true public servants who are doing the best for their country. But we know the company that Hillary and Obama keep already. We don't need to leave that question open.


Many of them are true public servants who are doing the best for their country. But we know the company that Hillary and Obama keep already. We don't need to leave that question open.

Posted by: Jeff | February 6, 2008 12:42 AM


Really Jeffy? I think we know the company that John McPotatohead keeps too.


McCain Founding Member of the Keating Five:

Back in the old days, defendants in famous trials got numbers -- the Chicago Eight, the Gang of Four, the Dave Clark Five, the Daytona 500. McCain was one of the "Keating Five," congressmen investigated on ethics charges for strenuously helping convicted racketeer Charles Keating after he gave them large campaign contributions and vacation trips.
Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)

http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm


dt:

Number One, my comments were mostly about the Democratic Party leadership and those who set policy. With regard to those folks, yes, they are dirty, pinko commies. Their literature and speeches are dripping with it.

Number Two, I have no idea how much the same comments apply to rank and file Democrats. There are many people who belong to the Democratic Party purely as an accident of location and history, and not because of any firm commitment to its ideology. There are many Democrats who don’t even know what the party ideology is, in which case it would be unfair to brand them as dirty, commie pinkos like the leadership. However, too many of them don’t take enough time to figure out any of this stuff, or simply trust their party leadership too much.

Number Three, unlike McCarthy, my opposition to the Democratic Party ideology would never involve persecution of those who hold these beliefs. I merely object to it, vote against those who support it, and urge others to do the same. Thus, the analogy to McCarthyism is over the top and insanely inane.

Number Four, and finally, slogans aren’t good for covering up the truth. Calling what I say about the Democratic Party “McCarthyism” doesn’t change the fact that it is true.


Many wonder why James Dobson has not endorsed Huckabee. Is there a more unwavering pro-life candidate? Is there another who has been “born again”? Have any, under spiritual conviction and to their own hurt, withdrawn a news release that would have justifiably reproved an opponent?

Many find it perplexing. Even the secular world is finding something amiss. Time magazine, in a recent article of remarkable spiritual perceptiveness, was stunned by Dobson’s reluctance to make “the natural Christian right choice.”

For months, Dobson has [seemed to favor] … Mitt Romney over Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee … the natural Christian right choice. In December, Dr. Dobson praised a Romney speech, as ‘a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy. His delivery was passionate and his message inspirational.’ Dobson even made a congratulatory phone call to the candidate.

When Romney lost the Iowa caucuses to Huckabee, Dobson attributed the outcome to ‘conservative Christians,’ but he has not warmed to the former governor…. who has spoken of his great and longtime friendship with the Dobsons, [wondering] … why no endorsement appears to be coming…. In … [Dobson’s] citizenlink.com assessments, Huckabee was found wanting in terms of foreign policy and ‘fiscal’ issues…. Romney, on the other hand, was praised as ‘solidly conservative’ and unlikely to renege on that stance.

The question remains: WHY no endorsement? And the answer appears to be Dobson’s the “End Justifies the Means” theology. The “End,” reconciling the lost to the Lord is commendable, but the “Means” are much less so. In order to save the world Dobson had to become more like it. And he seems to have honed the political arts of alliance, compromise, and concession far better than the discipline of unwavering Spirit lead conviction. All things considered, perhaps Dobson HAS given Huckabee the endorsement he needed.

http://popularapostasy.blogspot.com/2008/01/end-justifies-means-theology.html


The main point is the appointment of judges - The Republicans have been doing a lousy job in appointing non-idealogues (Souter - a rabid liberal recommended by Sununu to Bush Sr. is just one example). Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats fight to the bitter end, even going as far as lying and character assassination to derail a non-liberal judge (by non-liberal, I mean any Judge who does not look for loopholes or contrivances to advance the putrid liberal agenda). The Republicans in office have failed because they want to be liked and to please everyone unlike the Democrats, who only care to advance their liberal agenda caring little for what people think (of course, they say anything to get elected but do only what is in line with their beliefs). What about the far right? A bunch of morons who believe that electing a President is the same as electing their Church leader - they should not care if the candidate is a Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist, etc, as long as that candidate's voting record supports their values but they would rather appoint an atheist than someone who does not share their religious faith.


There was simply no one to vote for, and “none of the above” wasn’t an option on the ballot. In my view, elections can sometimes be so “blah” that participation just isn’t worth it.

Posted by: John W. | February 5, 2008 11:30 PM

I often disagree with you on a number of issues. And I won't go into particular issues here. But I do take issue with this statemnet.

It is still your duty to vote. If you don't like the two major party candidates, vote for Green or Libertarian candidate as sort of "protest" vote.

I did that in 2000 with Ralph Nader, when I just couldn't get myself to vote for Gore.

And, unfortunately, we often find ourselves voting for the "lesser of two evils", but I don't think that should keep you from the polls.

I'm pulling big time for Obama. And, of course, I voted for him yesterday.

I can't stand Hillary. But if she is nomitaed, I'll still go to the polls. I'll probably choose the Green party candidate again. Or, I might have to "hold my nose" and vote for Hillary. But I'm still going to vote.


I guess it's all matter of John W's Constitutional priorities. Limiting free speech is more acceptable to him than trying making quality healthcare more accesible.

Odd priorities in my opinion, but to each their own.


* * * * *

Posted by: Steve34 | February 6, 2008 7:53 AM

Steve34:

Do you have a principled reason to explain why you believe one has a duty to vote, as opposed to a right or privilege to do so? Is there a law, regulation or even a custom that legally or morally demands the presence of all eligible voters at the polls on election day?

I don't think so. I've always viewed voting as a form of Political Speech because both: 1) express one's conscience, and 2) input into the political decision-making process. But neither the right to vote nor free speech are free if compelled. Holding a person to a duty to vote is a form of compulsion. Thus, a duty to vote against one’s conscience would be a violation of an individual’s rights. As such, there can be no duty to vote.

Nor does there exist any reason why I ought to waste my privilege to vote when no one is on the ballot worth my vote. Protest votes mean nothing because the system has no mechanism to recognize a protest vote. If I vote for the Libertarian or Constitutional Party candidate, nothing in the system will indicate that I voted that way in protest, or that I did not earnestly desire the person for whom I voted to win. This would be different if ballots had “none of the above” or “protest” as an option, but not until then.


Hoorah for James Dobson!!!! He should have taken the "sitting this one out" years ago, and he should have been silent so nobody would have known he is one of the Crazy Tribe. History is going to look back upon Dobson and ask "Folks had to be dumber than he to have believed all the tripe that he distributed." Keep sitting, Dobson, and be silent doing it. -Wendell Franklin Wentz


* * * * *

Posted by: Observer | February 6, 2008 9:09 AM

What a bunch of rot.

One’s constitutional rights are equally jeopardized by a Hillary presidency. Remember, she voted for the McCain-Feingold BCRA too. Thus, everything I said about McCain for his support of the BCRA, and his lack of concern for First Amendment rights, applies to Hillary with equal force. In the same vein, she has no concern for property rights, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, or the limitations on the federal government, as imposed by the text of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. Go read any of her books and you will see, expressed in them, a conscious disregard for any distinction between federal and State power. That’s one of the reasons I believe we can’t do any worse if she were to be elected.

Second, making quality health care more affordable is not a federal issue. It is a State issue, if at all. The Constitution gives the States the primary power to deal with the health, education and welfare of its citizens. It gives none of that power to the federal government. (See Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution – which doesn’t list regulation of the medical or insurance industries as federal powers, and the 10th Amendment – which gives all non-delegated powers to the States or the People.) Thus, making it a federal issue demonstrates Hillary’s commitment to obliterate the distinction between federal and state power, and to continue consolidating the federal government into one with unlimited power.

You see, the question is never what powers the federal government ought to have, but, rather, what powers have actually been given it by the People. This is true, regardless of whether one finds its powers inadequate, and regardless of whether the exercise of powers by the States doesn’t meet everyone’s expectations. There is a proper way, namely, the amendment process outlined in Article V of the Constitution, to give the government more power if it needs it. That process affords the entire nation the opportunity to have a full, open and frank discussion regarding the wisdom and need for granting more power.

What Hillary has, which is intolerable, is a willingness to have the federal government usurp power without resort to the Article V process, and make the limitations in the Constitution meaningless. That is my primary objection to her, and why I would prefer McCain or any other candidate to her.


What Hillary has, which is intolerable, is a willingness to have the federal government usurp power without resort to the Article V process, and make the limitations in the Constitution meaningless. That is my primary objection to her, and why I would prefer McCain or any other candidate to her.

Posted by: John W. | February 6, 2008 4:07 PM

In what way doesn't McCain have that exact same willingness?

He's willing to usurp that power on political speech, on abortion, on stem cell research, on education, and , indeed, on health care.

His own website shows he believes that the Federal Government has a role in regulating all of those issues, which the Constitution does not specifically delegate to the Federal government

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

So it would appear that's not really the defining issue between them using your own logic.


Observer,

You seem to be bent on turning me into a John McCain supporter. I feel awkward in that role because I’m really not a fan. I just get a sick feeling whenever I think of Hillary becoming President.

However, on the specifics you raised, you have made some errors.

The first error is assuming that you have addressed all the Constitutional issues which differentiate Hillary and McCain in my eyes. You haven’t. There’s a lot more I find troubling about Hillary with regard to the Constitution than the issues you mention. Hillary’s extreme anti-gun stance – in the teeth of the Second Amendment – is something that makes her entirely unacceptable. So is her willingness to federalize a number of social issues - from abortion rights to sexual orientation – which should be or remain State issues. So is her willingness to fund a variety of new social spending programs on everything from pre-K schooling to paid family leave, and so on. So is her willingness to confiscate property for private use – in violation of the Fifth Amendment – to enforce her “universal health care plan” (hint: she’s not proposing a tax to do so). In short, she acknowledges no constitutional restraints whatsoever on the federal government. [And, no, this list doesn’t exhaust the trouble with Hillary and the Constitution in my view.]

In the second place, Hillary is just as bad as McCain on the issues you raised. As I mentioned, Hillary also voted for the BCRA, which shows her lack of regard for First Amendment Rights. She also wants federal regulation of stem-cell research – only she wants to fund it and promote it too. She also wants to create an entirely new, and substantially more expensive “universal health care” system, whereas McCain simply wants to revamp the old Medicare system (which few in Congress would give up without a fight anyway). They are about equal on their support for federal funding and regulation of education (which I am not now positive is unconstitutional).

Hillary is a actually worse than McCain on the issue of abortion. McCain wants abortion to become a non-federal issue and, therefore, supports the appointment of judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade. That is not usurping federal power to promote a social issue. To the contrary, it his plan is successful, it would result in the contraction of federal power. A reversal of Roe v. Wade would not result in having the federal government outlaw abortion. No federal power would be invoked. It would merely get the federal government out of the issue and allow the States to decide the question for themselves. That’s the way it ought to be in a federal system. Hillary, to the contrary, thinks Roe v. Wade is wonderful and would love to fund it and regulate it – just like everything else in the universe.

At the risk of being redundant, I must emphasize that I do not favor John McCain. I merely prefer him to Hillary. I’m not saying he’s the best or even good. I just think he’s better than Hillary. Think comparative. That’s all I’m doing.


John W-

And all I've been doing is to point out how YOU have moved away from your absolutist statements about McCain and are now "thinking comparative" (and much more positively)as he gets closer to the Republican nomination.

You prefer a Republican Statist to a Democratic one. Don't pretend you are reacting against the statism, it is the specific positions that you have a problem with. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you acknowledge it.


Posted by: John W. | February 6, 2008 2:00 PM

O.K., fine, but we do often use the phrase "duty" as a figure of speech. Such as, "I consider it my duty". I didn't mean it in terms of a "law".

However, wouldn't you agree that it would be hypocritcal of someone to complain about the direction the president takes the country, if that person did not "participate" in the process of electing/not electing him or her?


* * * * *

Posted by: Observer | February 6, 2008 10:25 PM

Observer,

I prefer the least amount of statism of any stripe. But I am not offered that choice right now. To the extent that any candidate offers a lot less statism, that candidate doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. I think this has something to do with the fact that people are actually happy, or at least comfortable, with the large government F.D.R. built. Thus, however much I would like Ron Paul to win, for instance, that does not appear to be the likely result in the very near future.

Therefore, the choice I am left with is the choice between devils to eliminate the worst. That is the only choice any of us have been given. The devil to avoid, if one ever wants a return to a relatively free, non-statist environment, is one that does not promise to expand governmental power, or one who might even contract the exercise of power, even if that devil is still a devil for clinging to some of the more grievous governmental excesses.

The absolutist statement you keep quoting, that I made about McCain, was that, “I find him unfit to serve as President.” I have not moved from this position. I still believe he is unfit to serve as President. But I also believe Hillary is more unfit to serve as President, and the rest of the candidates aren’t much than either of them. It amazes me to no end that this country, as great as it is, cannot produce a real leader to take the job; someone whom everyone could look up to and rally behind. Nevertheless, we are left with the reality that one of these turkeys (or devils) has to win, and some are worse than others. That is why I stated my preferences in comparative terms.

Contrary to what you suggest, my preference for McCain over Hillary is far from a happy or “positive” view of him. If I vote for him to avoid a Hillary presidency, I know I will not be getting what I want in a President even if he wins. I already know that whoever wins the election will not be competent to do the job. Thus, I am aware that all I could ever hope to do by voting this time is to keep this sad situation from getting any worse.


*****

“However, wouldn't you agree that it would be hypocritical of someone to complain about the direction the president takes the country, if that person did not "participate" in the process of electing/not electing him or her?”

Posted by: Steve34 | February 7, 2008 7:52 AM

The answer is: “sometimes.” “Hypocrisy” is essentially a “falseness” in the sense of acting or speaking in favor of something that one does not believe, and especially in a manner that departs from one’s true convictions. If one voted for a candidate, knowing full well that he or she will take the country in a particular direction, then it could well be hypocrisy to complain about the president for successfully taking the country in that intended direction – especially if the speaker/actor hasn’t undergone some epiphany or genuine change of heart in the interim. The same could not be said of the voter who complains about an unforeseen change in direction, or the voter who undergoes a genuine change of heart since the election.

Thus, I don’t believe it would be hypocritical for someone who didn’t vote to complain about a president who took the country into an unforeseen direction. If a person who voted for the president can’t be faulted for hypocrisy under such circumstances, the person who didn’t contribute to the election certainly can’t either. Nor do I believe that a non-voter can be charged with hypocrisy for a genuine change of heart that occurred between the election and the event that gives rise to the complaint. It’s not hypocritical for anyone to admit their mistakes and amend their ways. However, if someone refuses to vote, knowing full well that a foreseeable consequence will ensue if a candidate is elected, and his or her position hasn’t changed at all in the interim, then, yes, it would be hypocritical for him or her to complain about the foreseeable consequence after it occurs. I think we can all agree on that.

Then again, I am unsure you are trying to attach the label “hypocritical” to such a person, as much as you are trying to assign some moral fault for non-participation. I think I’ve already explained why non-voting, and particularly declining to vote simply to register a protest, doesn’t carry such moral opprobrium.


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "l" in the field below: