Christian Conservatives Consider Backing Third-Party Candidate

[clemsontigers23]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_el_pr/conservatives_third_party

Some of the nation's most politically influential conservative Christians, alarmed by the prospect of a Republican presidential nominee who supports abortion rights, are considering backing a third-party candidate.

More than 40 Christian conservatives attended a meeting Saturday in Salt Lake City to discuss the possibility, and planned more gatherings on how they should move forward, according to Richard A. Viguerie, the direct-mail expert and longtime conservative activist.

Rudy Giuliani, who supports abortion rights and gay rights, leads in national polls of the Republican presidential candidates. Campaigning in New Jersey on Monday, Giuliani brushed aside talk of an upstart effort by religious conservatives.

"I'm working on one party right now — the Republican Party," Giuliani said. "I believe we are reaching out very, very well to Republicans. The emphasis is on fiscal conservatism, which brings Republicans together."

Other participants in the meeting included James Dobson, founder of the Focus on the Family evangelical ministry in Colorado Springs, Colo., and, according to Viguerie, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, a conservative policy group in Washington.

Dobson attended the meeting, but is not yet participating in any planning for a third party, said Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family Action. Dobson and others spoke out against the idea at the meeting, even though both major parties could nominate candidates who back abortion rights and other policies that conservative Christians oppose, Schneeberger said.

A spokesman for Perkins did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

Viguerie would not give specifics of the proposal or reveal additional names of participants, but said President Bush "would not have been elected in '04 without the people in that room."

"There is such jaundiced feelings about any promises or commitments from any Republican leaders," he said in a phone interview. "You could almost cut the anger and the frustration with a knife in that room it's so strong. Because they don't know what else to do, they're talking third party."

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee did not respond to a request for comment.

The participants were in Salt Lake City for a separate meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, a group of conservative business, religious and political leaders that was co-founded years ago by Tim LaHaye, author of the "Left Behind" series of books. Vice President Dick Cheney flew into the city Friday to address the group, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.

Christian conservatives, who hold considerable sway in the Republican Party, have been deeply unhappy about the field of GOP presidential candidates.

Dobson has said he wouldn't support Giuliani, calling the former New York mayor an "unapologetic supporter of abortion on demand." Dobson has also rejected former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson as wrong on social issues, and wouldn't back John McCain because of the Arizona senator's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Viguerie said conservatives "are still open" to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, but said, "we haven't seen anything that guarantees that he will hold to the positions that he's articulating." Romney has been questioned about his record on gay rights.

However, the proposal to consider a third-party candidate comes from anger that the Republicans whom Christians have helped elect for decades have failed to act on policy issues important to evangelicals on abortion, marriage and school prayer.

"Conservatives have been treated like a mistress as long as any of us can remember," Viguerie said. "They'll have lots of private meetings with us, tell us how much they appreciate it and how much they value us, but if you see me on the street please don't speak with me."

A third-party run would be a long shot, requiring millions of dollars and challenges to ballot access. Such a bid could prove disastrous for the GOP by splitting the vote.

Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, was not at the meeting. But he said no one floating the idea of a third party thinks there's much chance the candidate would win. He considers the proposal a reaction to "moguls of the Republican establishment" who think conservative Christians will support the GOP no matter what.

"A lot of them won't hold their nose and do it," Land said.

I have to say I agree with them...the only conservative I'm even considering voting for is Fred Thompson, and the more I hear about him the more I don't like. If anyone besides Barack Obama gets the Democratic nomination, I'm not voting for them either, which means I'm either not voting or voting for a third-party candidate, if they are suitable.

[Evanescence]

People are fed up with the REPS. My buddy is running for Congress against a 4term Congressman who's been a rubber stamp for Bush, and people are fed up.

He has it on good authority that the politics within the REP party is out of control...menaing these REPS must side with Bush, or they risk getting in trouble. Santorum is a good example, he was booted last election.

Hillary won't get the nod from the DEMS....it'd be suicide. Obama or Edwards will get it....

REPS, its anyones guess. BUT, these are historic times for the uS and politics. People are fed up and things are gonna change...maybe not for long, but our voices will finally be heard.

Bush will continue to double talk and his rubber stampers will continue to lie and back him...committing political suicide themselves. BUT, if this is true and another party is endorced, the REPS will go down for sure.

I really like Ron paul, but think he's too honest and righteous for the job....

[Jesuslove]

People are fed up with the REPS. My buddy is running for Congress against a 4term Congressman who's been a rubber stamp for Bush, and people are fed up.

He has it on good authority that the politics within the REP party is out of control...menaing these REPS must side with Bush, or they risk getting in trouble. Santorum is a good example, he was booted last election.

Hillary won't get the nod from the DEMS....it'd be suicide. Obama or Edwards will get it....

REPS, its anyones guess. BUT, these are historic times for the uS and politics. People are fed up and things are gonna change...maybe not for long, but our voices will finally be heard.

Bush will continue to double talk and his rubber stampers will continue to lie and back him...committing political suicide themselves. BUT, if this is true and another party is endorced, the REPS will go down for sure.

I really like Ron paul, but think he's too honest and righteous for the job....

I hope the conservatives are able to get a third party candidate.

I disagree, I think Hillary will win the Dem nod, but I do think she won't win.

I too think Ron Paul is too honest for the job. Seems politicians don't want honesty, they want party loyalty.

[jabob]

I predict Hillary will get the nomination. I think the Republican nod goes to either Rudy or Fred. If these people attempt to put up their own conservative candidate, they virtually guarantee Hillary the Oval Office. I think this might just be these folks flexing their muscles trying to get attention so people will turn away from Rudy.

[mat1583]

Why not back the Republican candidate Ron Paul. He's a bit of a 'third party' candidate for the Republican party, a Christian man, and extremely pro life. Here's his voting record in regards to abortion:

* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Seems to me that they already have a great choice with RP.

-washboard

[in hiding]

Why not back the Republican candidate Ron Paul. He's a bit of a 'third party' candidate for the Republican party, a Christian man, and extremely pro life. Here's his voting record in regards to abortion:

* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Seems to me that they already have a great choice with RP.

-washboard

http://www.christiansforronpaul. com/home.htm

[mat1583]

http://www.christiansforronpaul. com/home.htm

Awesome! :)

Here's a fact I didn't know about Ron Paul: Dr. Paul has been married to the same woman for fifty years. He and his wife have been blessed with five children and seventeen grandchildren.

He's an amazing man, and I just hope and pray that he gets the nomination.

-washboard

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I heard he punched a lion in the FACE! (http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm)

[clemsontigers23]

Paul's libertarian, isolationist views are too scary for me to even consider voting for him.

[in hiding]

Paul's libertarian, isolationist views are too scary for me to even consider voting for him.
Why is a libertarian view scary? Now, I don't agree with everything he stands for but I'll take him over any candidate (though huckabee is appealing) for character, thought, and consistency on views.
He's not an isolationist, as many would like you to believe here's what HE says about it:
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."

[Evanescence]

Why is a libertarian view scary? Now, I don't agree with everything he stands for but I'll take him over any candidate (though huckabee is appealing) for character, thought, and consistency on views.
He's not an isolationist, as many would like you to believe here's what HE says about it:
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."

I agree...the founding fathers were NOTHING like our Reps and Dems today....

Nothing like ANY politicians today....

[mat1583]

Paul's libertarian, isolationist views are too scary for me to even consider voting for him.

I think what's scarier is how the power of our government over its people has continued to grow over the past 50 years. While we preach freedoms to other nations, our very own freedom is slowly being drained by money/power hungry politicians that have convinced citizens that it's for the 'good' of the people. It's about time to see someone stand up that can say , "This is now how it used to be! And this is not where you want our nation to go if you value freedom and liberty!"

-washboard

[Jesuslove]

I think what's scarier is how the power of our government over its people has continued to grow over the past 50 years. While we preach freedoms to other nations, our very own freedom is slowly being drained by money/power hungry politicians that have convinced citizens that it's for the 'good' of the people. It's about time to see someone stand up that can say , "This is now how it used to be! And this is not where you want our nation to go if you value freedom and liberty!"

-washboard

Amen. I agree wholeheartedly.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Why is a libertarian view scary? Now, I don't agree with everything he stands for but I'll take him over any candidate (though huckabee is appealing) for character, thought, and consistency on views.
He's not an isolationist, as many would like you to believe here's what HE says about it:
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."

Exactly. Thank you for clarifying. Now if some of the MSNBC people would stop misreporting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv2jSYZtKW4), we wouldn't hear this anymore.

[Evanescence]

I think what's scarier is how the power of our government over its people has continued to grow over the past 50 years. While we preach freedoms to other nations, our very own freedom is slowly being drained by money/power hungry politicians that have convinced citizens that it's for the 'good' of the people. It's about time to see someone stand up that can say , "This is now how it used to be! And this is not where you want our nation to go if you value freedom and liberty!"

-washboard

Yep, each power figure and president doing their part....

Thats why 911 should be questioned in light of its unbelievable consistencies...and anomolies....

[clemsontigers23]

Yep, each power figure and president doing their part....

Thats why 911 should be questioned in light of its unbelievable consistencies...and anomolies....

You just ruined a perfectly good discussion with your 9/11 nonsense again.:rolleyes:

[mat1583]

Exactly. Thank you for clarifying. Now if some of the MSNBC people would stop misreporting (http://video.msn.com/video.aspx/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/&search=MSNBC&q=ron%20paul%20fundraisin g&submit=Search&id=11881780&FORM=AE&gs=1&os=10&fg=&from=00&vid=911a8242-d311-42e5-88ad-f54093eec58a&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us :vs:0:tag:News_Editors%20 Picks,2:ns:MSNVideo_Top_C at:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A&wa=wsignin1.0), we wouldn't hear this anymore.

I couldn't get the video to load. What was it about?

-washboard

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I couldn't get the video to load. What was it about?

-washboard

Link is fixed.

[mat1583]

Exactly. Thank you for clarifying. Now if some of the MSNBC people would stop misreporting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv2jSYZtKW4), we wouldn't hear this anymore.

I posted a comment on there. It's amazing how ignorant people are about the whole thing...but when you think about it, people will believe just about anything they see on TV.

-washboard

[in hiding]

I posted a comment on there. It's amazing how ignorant people are about the whole thing...but when you think about it, people will believe just about anything they see on TV.

-washboard
people don't like to think for themselves, rather, explore something for themselves. We hear in 10-20 second soundbites and we remember those...it doesn't matter if those are accurate or not either b/c not many will take the time to explore the issues

edit... I don't care if people disagree with me on issues, I just want them to disagree based on correct information.

[mat1583]

Paul's libertarian, isolationist views are too scary for me to even consider voting for him.

Here's another great video of Ron Paul explaining that he is not an isolationist, but a non-interventionalist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGFyh92HoCU

-washboard

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Here's another great video of Ron Paul explaining that he is not an isolationist, but a non-interventionalist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGFyh92HoCU

-washboard

That was a great interview.

[clemsontigers23]

Here's another great video of Ron Paul explaining that he is not an isolationist, but a non-interventionalist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGFyh92HoCU

-washboard

If we had a non-interventionalist in office when Hitler was trying to take over the world, millions more people would have died and Hitler was very close to taking over half the world. I know that's not why we got involved at first, but we were able to successfully stop Hitler because we intervened.

Also, in the Korean War, we were able to withstand a threat from communist forces, such as China and the USSR, and we were able to keep South Korea free, because we intervened. There are times when it needs to be done, and Ron Paul doesn't sound like the type of guy who gives a crap about anyone but people in America, which a lot of selfish Americans would be fine with, but we're not the only people in the world who God loves, and we should use the resources that God has blessed us with to help others, just as God has commanded us to use His blessings to help those in need. We should always be there to help when we are called upon to help, because it's just the right thing to do.

[Evanescence]

You just ruined a perfectly good discussion with your 9/11 nonsense again.:rolleyes:

To millions of people around the world its not nonesense, its about finding out the truth and stopping the madness of false flag attacks. False-flag attacks that HAVE happened many times in world history as a means to start wars and/or change public opinion of ideaology. WWI and Vietnam are two confirmed examples.

All things are relative my friend, all things...

[mat1583]

If we had a non-interventionalist in office when Hitler was trying to take over the world, millions more people would have died and Hitler was very close to taking over half the world. I know that's not why we got involved at first, but we were able to successfully stop Hitler because we intervened.

We did not intervene. We were attacked by Japan and we declared war by an act of Congress (as outlined in the Constitution). Once in the war, we were in it for good, but it certainly was not intervention.


Also, in the Korean War, we were able to withstand a threat from communist forces, such as China and the USSR, and we were able to keep South Korea free, because we intervened.

I'm very glad you mentioned the Korean War. When the US was involved in the war, no progress on our part was being made. We were continually losing troops and territory, at times gaining it back, but just barely holding the North Koreans out of all of South Korea. (Seoul changed hands a total of 4 times!). Not only that, but the conflict was killing thousands of innocent civilians. Would you rather be dead or living in a communist society?

But here's the kicker...guess who was elected to put a stop to the war? President Eisenhower, a republican. Eisenhower is the reason the war stopped because he sought peace talks and cease fires instead of bloodshed! And he even commanded allied troops in WWII.


There are times when it needs to be done, and Ron Paul doesn't sound like the type of guy who gives a crap about anyone but people in America, which a lot of selfish Americans would be fine with, but we're not the only people in the world who God loves, and we should use the resources that God has blessed us with to help others, just as God has commanded us to use His blessings to help those in need. We should always be there to help when we are called upon to help, because it's just the right thing to do.

Apparently you have ignored or not even viewed any of the videos we've posted. Seriously, how many of them have you honestly watched all the way through? Did you even know that Ron Paul voted to go to Afghanistan? Ron Paul is not opposed to war when necessary as long as it is Constitutionally declared by Congress.

You say that we should use our resources God has blessed us with to help others. Do you think God blesses us with bombs and bullets so we can plant a democracy in a nation that is torn by a civil war? Called upon to help? The Iraqis did not call on our help. NATO did not call upon our help. We just bombed the crap out of the place and went in with 130,000 troops.

I'm out for the night.

-washboard

[WeaselInYerFoot]

How about a direct letter from Ron Paul (he took the time and responded to a NH paper that claimed he was also, an Isolationist)


Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would

By RON PAUL

27 minutes ago

Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is running for the Republican presidential nomination.


source. (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Rep .+Ron+Paul%3A+I+advocate+ the+same+foreign+policy+t he+Founding+Fathers+would&articleId=cc287b0f-941c-4b07-88e9-9e992810f700)

[clemsontigers23]

That just makes it worse...by no means should be trade with a nation like Cuba or North Korea. By Ron Paul's logic, we lose all leverage we have with the possible threat of sanctions, and then we have no way of pressuring nations like Iran into stopping whatever evil they're doing, unless we resort to military force.

Embargoes are very effective and necessary.

[mat1583]

That just makes it worse...by no means should be trade with a nation like Cuba or North Korea. By Ron Paul's logic, we lose all leverage we have with the possible threat of sanctions, and then we have no way of pressuring nations like Iran into stopping whatever evil they're doing, unless we resort to military force.

Embargoes are very effective and necessary.

By your logic we should also put trade embargoes on China, which would certainly take a huge bite out of our own economy. By the way...trade embargoes don't just effect a foreign government. They effect the people living in that country - by creating starvation, poverty, and poor health care. This article: http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/132/2/151.pdf describes how the US trade embargo on Cuba has been a detriment to the health care of Cuba's citizens.

Right...very morally upstanding to prohibit trade with another country to starve its people and deplete their health care system.

-washboard

[in hiding]

That just makes it worse...by no means should be trade with a nation like Cuba or North Korea. By Ron Paul's logic, we lose all leverage we have with the possible threat of sanctions, and then we have no way of pressuring nations like Iran into stopping whatever evil they're doing, unless we resort to military force.

Embargoes are very effective and necessary.

yes, the sanctions we have against cuba are really doing a lot to stop the evil that castro is doing to his people. We trade with China, a most favored nation, that is communist and if you read the headlines, isn't exactly putting out quality merchandise. Can you name one benefit that has happened b/c of the embargo on cuba? The US foreign policy is so screwed up.

[in hiding]

By your logic we should also put trade embargoes on China, which would certainly take a huge bite out of our own economy. By the way...trade embargoes don't just effect a foreign government. They effect the people living in that country - by creating starvation, poverty, and poor health care. This article: http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/132/2/151.pdf describes how the US trade embargo on Cuba has been a detriment to the health care of Cuba's citizens.

Right...very morally upstanding to prohibit trade with another country to starve its people and deplete their health care system.

-washboard

would you quit posting what I'm thinking!!!! ;)

[rossid]

Christians opposed to Dobson now started:
www.jamesdobsondoesntspea kforme.com.

This was in a FoxNews.com article where Obama now fired back at Dobson's comments that Obama is twisting the Bible.

The founder of the group is a Bush supporter and now Obama supporter.

"The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Methodist pastor from Texas and longtime supporter of President Bush who has endorsed Obama, said Tuesday that he belongs to a group of religious leaders who are working independently of Obama’s campaign and launching a Web site to counter Dobson at www.jamesdobsondoesntspea kforme.com."

[Jesuslove]

Christians opposed to Dobson now started:
www.jamesdobsondoesntspea kforme.com.

This was in a FoxNews.com article where Obama now fired back at Dobson's comments that Obama is twisting the Bible.

The founder of the group is a Bush supporter and now Obama supporter.

"The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Methodist pastor from Texas and longtime supporter of President Bush who has endorsed Obama, said Tuesday that he belongs to a group of religious leaders who are working independently of Obama’s campaign and launching a Web site to counter Dobson at www.jamesdobsondoesntspea kforme.com."

James Dobson doesn't speak for a lot of people. He's painted himself into a corner in the far right. He said he won't vote for McCain. He has spoken out against Obama. Dobson may well be voting for a third party candidate, much like his conservative Christian breathern