All valid points, but I would prefer that the Christian right flex its political muscle on an issue where the collateral damage could be repaired in the next election. My fear is that the GOP will learn its lesson but will not have an opportunity to apply what it learns for many years.

 

All good points and what the result in the future will be is question marks.

 

As I stand now, I cannot find myself voting for Rudy G. The lesser of two evils vote is like being a little bit pregnant.

Dobson stated that he has always been a man of principle and that he and Hannity would just have to agree to disagree. Apparently Dobson's "principled stance" does not allow him to consider the lesser of the evils.

Accepting the lesser of the evils is still accepting evil.

 

I'll send my vote elsewhere.

Dobson's rigidness is fine as an indication of his unwavering beliefs. However, the liberalization of abortion laws (For example, what about partial birth abortions?) and the further destruction of laws insuring basic moral tenants under the guise of increased "freedoms" will result from Dobson's attitude.

 

Will Dobson witness the increased killing of the preborn and justify it by saying that he is teaching the GOP a lesson? If so, he is wrong and his stance for "absolute principle", though it won't effect his "lifestyle", will result in the blood of many innocents. The guaranteed effect that a Hillary, Obama, Edwards, etc. presidency would have on the US Supreme Court and the lower federal courts would be devastating to those traditional moral beliefs. I find it unconscionable that Dobson, who is obviously aware of this, would support this inevitable destruction merely to stand on his "unwavering principles".

 

Thompson's stance on marriage indicates his adherence to the Tenth Amendment (States's Rights). Support of the right of individual states to make their own determinations and laws over federal control from Washington is the usual conservative position. The real issue involves whether or not states who side with traditional marriage must grant full faith and credit to the marriages, etc. taking place in those states that allow nontraditional unions. That would be a real, divisive, and potentially expensive problem.