(or Remember the good ole days, when James Dobson was pro-life?)

Regarding a recent meeting of pro-family leaders, Dr James Dobson wrote:

. . . we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate.

This conclusion was ostensibly reached based on the conventional wisdom that the Republican party will probably nominate Rudy Giuliani (who is not politically pro-life) and the Democratic party wouldn’t nominate a pro-life candidate in any circumstance. It’s probably not quite as certain, but for sake of argument, let’s say that the DNC nominee is Hillary Clinton.

Granted, the two major parties are rapidly becoming indistinguishable, and this phenomenon may eventually bring about the rise of a third party that is more than just a punch-line for Leno and Letterman. But it’s not going to happen in 2008. And so a vote that ordinarily would go to Giuliani, that goes to a third-party candidate instead, is effectively a vote for Clinton.

Dobson keeps repeating that he is speaking as a private citizen, not as the leader/founder of Focus on the Family, but even someone dumb enough to vote for Hillary isn’t dumb enough to think that he won’t sway the thousands (millions?) that take their political marching orders from Colorado Springs. And so, all those sheep will be voting for Hillary, too. This in a race that was extremely tight before Dobson’s stunt.

(And even if he is that dumb, then how does a private citizen get to write an op-ed piece for the NY Times and get interviewed on TV?)

While a president does wield some power when it comes to pro-life issues, the greater power lies with the Supreme Court, justices for which are nominated by the president. Throw out the two whipper-snappers that President Bush nominated, and the average SC justice will be over 72 years old when the next administration takes office, with one less than 16 months shy of 90. The next president, in all likelihood, is going to be nominating multiple justices.

Giuliani has stated that he would nominate justices that are strict constructionists. While there’s not a complete parallel, many strict constructionists tend to be pro-life — something about having brain cells, I think. Conversely, no Democratic president would dare nominate a pro-life justice. When questioned about this fact on Hannity & Colmes, Dobson said to Sean Hannity:

You’re taking Rudy’s word on his intention to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. . .

Dobson went on to cite Giuliani’s “terrible record” of appointing “some of the worst possible [municipal court] judges” while mayor of New York City. When Hannity asked if that meant that Dobson was calling Giulani a liar, Dobson said that he wouldn’t go that far.

Gee, Jim, there are people that tell the truth and then there are those others. What do people with a spine call that second group, again?

Everything becomes crystal clear, though, with Dobson’s closing remarks (emphasis mine):

If Rudy Giuliani wins — I’m telling you — the pro-life and pro-family movement is gone. If it’s Hillary, as bad as she is, there will be a mobilization to fight what she’s tried to do.

In his analysis of this issue, Allahpundit says on HotAir (which has the YouTube video of select parts of the interview):

. . . [Dobson] explains why it would actually be better for Hillary to be president than Rudy. For him, that is. Not for you.

While I’m not certain, I think that the “you” to which Allahpundit refers is (at narrowest) conservatives in general, or perhaps even as wide as Americans across the board (as many conservatives believe that this whole country is going to be in deep doo-doo if Hillary becomes president).

But in reality, the focus can be narrowed even further. Because a Clinton presidency will not be better for those that are truly pro-life and pro-family. Yes, it will be better for the “pro-life and pro-family movement“, in that whatever political mojo Dobson has lost in the last seven years will be regained with a Democrat in the White House — especially one so loathed by Dobson’s followers.

(And the dollars “to fight” her stance will come pouring in. But let’s be charitable and assume that it’s only power that Dobson’s after, not money.)

Meanwhile, issues that are supposedly important to Dobson will take giant steps backwards. But apparently, none of that really matters to him.

James Dobson has ended this presidential race before it even really got started.

First Lady Bill Clinton. Get used to it.