Dobson seems to be proposing to cut off his foot to spite his leg. And there's nothing at all to be gained by actually doing that. The political posturing by making the statement at this point pre-election is the best he can achieve. But I'm merely stating the obvious.

hln

As for Dobson and company, they've been making the same noises since Nixon. they've yet to pull that string, including when Robertson ran. that's because at the bottom line, they recognize that the democrats are not the lesser evil.

Gay Marriage: Who cares, I'm not gay and don't know any gay people (that I'm aware of) so it doesn't affect me. I figure that one should be able to give their benefits, social security, etc. to whomever he/she chooses. Its not the gov't's business who I give my benefits to.

Great, but what does this have to do with gay marriage?

Religion: That's between me and God. Its no one's place to tell me how to worship (or not) nor is it my place to preach to anyone else. God and I will sort that out at the end of the day.

what God are you talking about, it's not the God of the Bible or of the Qur'an.

In my opinion, if the evangelicals want to hit the road they can go right ahead. A candidate that is willing to move the Republican party more toward the center of American politics will most likely do the party good in the long run.

thats just briliant, get the base and the closest thing to the way our Forefathers wanted us to live to leave the party, Im sorry but you sound just like a liberal, mabee your the one that should leave.

There, and I said that without mentioning the most offended of all -the person who created the murdered child - God!

If it's a woman's choice, then it should be entirely her responsibility what happens after she gives birth.

I realize you were making a rhetorical point about abortion, but your comment misunderstands the justification for a father's responsibility to a child. It is not the woman's right to contribution for the child's upbringing, it is the child's right. It is unjustifiable to deny a child the right to support from his or her father merely because abortion is legal, whatever you might think about abortion itself.

As for abortion voters, I have always credited the Republican leadership with the ability to make just the minimum number of "mistakes" in Supreme Court nominees to make sure Roe isn't overturned. The issue is far more useful if Roe is still the law than if it weren't. That is all the issue was ever about for Reagan or Bush 41. I have frankly given up on trying to figure out how Bush 43 thinks so I am not sure whether his nominees will continue the tradition -- one that Guiliani or Thompson surely would continue, and one that Brownback surely would not.

I happen to be a Christian and a Conservative though I don't claim to be part of the group mentioned here ... certainly not now.

So long as they define "Christian issues" as abortion and gay marriage -- as opposed to all that stuff Jesus talked about -- they're going to have to vote against the Democratic candidate, no matter whom the Repubs nominate.

A 3d-party candidate would, as Bob notes, spell defeat in 2008, but perhaps with a long-term effect in their favor, pushing future candidates to make greater concessions.

If in the end, they do move to another Party, good. And if MoveOn chooses to do the same with the Democrats, also good. I really would like to see our 2 Party system become a multi-party system. This may be what it takes to accomplish that.

But chances are, if the theocrats do leave the Republican Party, they are only going to insure a Democratic landslide. I don't think they really want to see that happen. I'm not sure I do either.

If it's a woman's choice, then it should be entirely her responsibility what happens after she gives birth. No input for the man should mean no legal responsibility for the man. That argument that if he didn't want to have a baby, he shouldn't have had sex doesn't fly anymore. If she didn't want a baby, she could just have an abortion. It is thus entirely her moral responsibility, so long as abortion is legal, to care for that child without a prior, written agreement on his part.