Does anybody actually think that .... eh .... new thread ...Lucky said:I guess a practical translation of that would be: vote Constitution Party.
See, and they told me I was crazy for having you on my ignore list. They must have been right, with high-quality posts such as this. I asked a question because I've heard your around-the-bush answer before, and it didn't seem "Bob Enyart style" black-and-white. What party do you have in mind, big man?Bob Enyart said:Hey Mr. 5020, think harder!
I'd be in favor of either that or boycotting the elections completely.Lucky said:I guess a practical translation of that would be: vote Constitution Party.
:nono:Jefferson said:I'd be in favor of either that or boycotting the elections completely.
As I stated to you in a previous post, "I disagree. It would result in immediate respect. Respect along with hatred to be sure, but respect nevertheless. Elections are usually won or lost by a couple percentage points. If Dobson's huge following agreed to follow his lead and boycott the elections (for the Republican's refusal to have a litmus test for judges vowing to overturn Roe v. Wade), that would immediately send the Republican party quaking in their boots which is the exact opposite of how they treat the Christian right today, which is to merely give us lip service and then vote the exact opposite of our convictions because they "know" that we won't vote Democrat. They think they have us in their hip pocket. And they're right, they do...today. But if we vow in mass to boycott the elections then it will be we who have them in our hip pocket. And this respect would become reality at the very moment of the press release announcing the boycott. That's the exact opposite of the short-term political suicide you predict."Zakath said::nono:
Boycotting the elections only plays into the hands of your opponents. It's bad strategy in a democratic republic unless a quorum of the electorate is required for a vote to be valid.
For someone who claims not to be a humanist, your boundless faith in humanity never ceases to amaze me, Jeff. :nono:Jefferson said:As I stated to you in a previous post, "I disagree. It would result in immediate respect. Respect along with hatred to be sure, but respect nevertheless.
On the other hand, since you won't vote anyway, they could always boycott you; rendering your display effectively useless and your group further marginalized than you've ever been in the past....But if we vow in mass to boycott the elections then it will be we who have them in our hip pocket. And this respect would become reality at the very moment of the press release announcing the boycott. That's the exact opposite of the short-term political suicide you predict."
I seem to recall listening to Dobson himself, after the 2000 election, describing how he threatened the RNC with withdrawing his influence so they would put one or more planks in their platform that he desired.Mr. 5020 said:Actually, it's not Dobson. Dobson has not said anything about boycotting Republicans. That's why Enyart and Enyart's followers are so upset - because Dobson won't go with a new strategy.
Enyart - chihuahuaZakath said:I seem to recall listening to Dobson himself, after the 2000 election, describing how he threatened the RNC with withdrawing his influence so they would put one or more planks in their platform that he desired.
If anything, Enyart very much wants to run with the big dogs on this but he's a day late and a dollar short on this one.
:thumb:Mr. 5020 said:Enyart - chihuahua
Dobson - great dane
I agree with you on that one, Zak.
You're exactly right. And it's his desire to be a king maker that caused him to violate his own vow to never again support a candidate who was willing to kill a single unborn child. All we want Dobson to do is to simply uphold his own vow.Zakath said:He sees himself as a "koenigsmacker" (king maker) with the power to dictate to the political powers that be and mold things to his vision.
I disagree. It would have a much larger influence than that. For example, I know of many Christians who are not on any mailing lists but they and their family and all their friends go along with Christian boycotts that they hear other ministries publicizing. Probably not even one of them are actual "members" of the organizing ministry's mailing list.Unfortunately, even were the entire FOTF mailing list behave the way he wanted, they still represent only a few hundred thousand adults - not all of whom vote Republican!
How many people are you estimating, then?Jefferson said:I disagree. It would have a much larger influence than that. For example, I know of many Christians who are not on any mailing lists but they and their family and all their friends go along with Christian boycotts that they hear other ministries publicizing. Probably not even one of them are actual "members" of the organizing ministry's mailing list.
Enough to swing a mere 1 to 2 percent of the voting population which is all that is needed in many elections.Mr. 5020 said:How many people are you estimating, then?
How else is someone supposed to get Dobson's attention? You can't call him. He has secretaries that take thousands of messages for him and filter out the very few they feel are worth his time. Same thing with email messages and letters. So if you wanted to get his attention, how would you go about doing it?On Fire said:I did not read the letter.
I think in-fighting is destructive.
I think open letters are a way of focusing attention on yourself.
Unless I missed it, there wasn't much of a response to Enyart, more like a simple denial of involvement in the picketing.Jefferson said:FOTF's response can be found here: http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036307.cfm
Not a party exactly, just those politicians that are stricly Pro-Life.Mr. 5020 said:What party do you have in mind, big man?
Nice suck up there, Jay. It's interesting to watch you trying to become Enyart's lapdog.Freak said::BRAVO: