Posted on 11/15/2004 1:04:53 PM PST by hinterlander
Republican senators who support Sen. Arlen Specter's bid to chair the Judiciary Committee could face retribution from disgruntled conservative and Christian voters, warned Dr. James Dobson in an interview Monday with HUMAN EVENTS.
Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family Action, a political group he organized to help re-elect President Bush, said Specter is frantically trying to save his spot atop the Judiciary Committee after suggesting Bush shouldn't bother nominating pro-life judges.
Specter has since distanced himself from his November 3 comments, but the protests against him haven't diminished. For the second straight weekend, he appeared on Sunday morning news programs trying to allay fears voiced by activists like Dobson.
"It may not be possible to derail Senator Specter," Dobson conceded to HUMAN EVENTS, "but if they [Republican senators] don't do that, I think it ought to be very clear that when the senator reneges on his promise to do the right thing, it's going to be remembered."
Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee are expected to meet with Specter this week, which will be followed by a secret vote taken in January to elect a chairman. Their offices have been inundated with phone calls protesting Specter's possible promotion.
GOP-imposed term limits are forcing Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) to step down as the committee's chairman. Next in line is Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa), who would rather lead the Finance Committee than Judiciary, leaving Specter with the most seniority.
"He's been out there for the last week on every show that would invite him," Dobson said of the Pennsylvania senator. "He's been trying to save his chairmanship by bobbing and weaving and telling us that he didn't mean what he said when he said what he meant."
Dobson has used his radio program, which reaches 7 million listeners per week, to rail against Specter's possible ascension. Other conservative and Christian interest groups are protesting as well, including a scheduled demonstration Tuesday at the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.).
"We're certainly going to do everything we can to let people know that Senator Specter not only threatens the court, but he is also the champion of stem-cell research and he is opposed to protection of marriage within the Constitution," Dobson said. "This man is going to be in an extremely powerful position to oppose most of what President Bush was elected to do. That is irritating a large number of people."
Dobson said Specter owes his victory to Bush, who chose to campaign with him instead of his more conservative Republican primary opponent, Rep. Pat Toomey. Specter narrowly beat Toomey by a little more than 17,000 votes in the April primary.
"He was very clear about what his intentions are," Dobson said in reference to Specter's November 3 remarks. "It's not only the court, he stands in opposition to just about everything the President ran on in terms of the moral and social agenda. How arrogant is that?"
Robert B. Bluey is Assistant Editor for HUMAN EVENTS
I explained this to you once. Exit polls are asked of people as they leave the polling place. There are many questions on the Exit Poll Questionare. Two of the questions asked were, "VOTE BY RELIGION" and "WHITE EVANGELICAL/BORN-AGAIN?" They are two different questions. Get it?! LOL
Where did I say that? You're the only going off the deep end here; I merely pointed out that that 23 perecent if inclueded in the VOTE BY RELIGION cateogry; it's a SUBCATEOGY. You need to admit that that 23 percent is NOT a separate group of people voting for Bush.
Don't be disingenuous.
I provided you with a link to an article that published what the Pew Research Center said.
And I suggest you do a search on Krauthammer; you'll be REAlLY surprised.
I rarely hit abuse. Only do it in the most egregious cases.
That is absolutely NOT true.
Pathetic!
There is NO sub-catagory! The 23% are the total amount of voters, who took part in the Exit Poll Questionare, that identified themselves as "WHITE EVANGELICAL/BORN-AGAIN?", AKA. members of the "Religious Right". I don't see why you're having difficulty grasping the data contained in the exit polling from 2000 and 2004. This is basic stuff.
I'm still not holding my breath...
*snicker*
Never tattle to Jim, either, do you?
That is absolutely true! What do you think that 23% stands for? In 2000 it was 14%. That's a 9% increase in votes cast by members of the Religious Right.
And the one link you provided me contains nothing that rebutts the exit polling data I supplied from 2000 and 2004.
That's ricidulous. First they ask you if what religion you are and you identify WHICH religion.
And THEN they ask you if you consider yourself to be what is called born-again.
Obviously you've never been polled.
Born-Again is not a cateogry like Protestant, Jewish, Catholics, Other, or None.
All the 23 means is that 23 percent of the people who consider themselves a member of a religion believe themselves to be born-again.
In fact, it's not even the same question:
In 2000, ABC has "Do you consider yourself part of the conservative Christian political movement, also known as the religious right?"
You can consider yourself part of the religious right without being born-again.
It stand for the 23 percent of ALL religions who consider themselves BORN AGAIN and/or Evangelicals.
[Dobson shut the hell up... we'll take care of Arlen in our own way.]
Sounds like you have a few "issues" with God....I don't see what harm Mr. Dobson is doing. But I have noticed lately alot of people don't want to be seen as some of those "Jesus Freaks". As for me...you can call me a "Jesus Freak" ANYTIME!!!
My guess, whoever composed this puff piece didn't know where the collar counties were, nor that they are usually carried by Republican's by 65% to 70%. A 47% showing is/was less than spectacular.
Here's hoping all those contributions were well spent.
Mr. Dodson is NOT God, FGS.
BTW, these are the exit polls that gave the victory to Kerry that we're all so excited about, are they not?
Your point?
Wrong again.
>>>>Born-Again is not a cateogry like Protestant, Jewish, Catholics, Other, or None.
Of course it is. You can deny it all you want. Evangelical, born again Christian, Christian conservative are all members of the so-called Religious Right. And in 2000 they constituted 14% of the votes. In 2004, they constituted 23%. The exit poll questions are specific.
You're the one attempting to twist the truth and its not working. For years the figure of 20%-25% has been tossed around when trying to define the percentage of Americans who identfy with the Religious Right. Looks like in 2004, most of the Religious Right came out to vote and 78% voted for Bush.
Ah, yeah.
Some people think he is. I do listen to Focus on the Family and sometimes I get annoyed but not everyone has to agree with me *LOL*
If it is, why isn't it up under VOTE BY RELIGION? Why isn't it separate?
BTW, I notice that not all of the Evangelicals voted for Bush.
LOL......I thought I just read something kind of detrimental about that FOTF within the last few weeks. Can't remember what.
Mikey has a problem with Dobson, not God.
Why is it separate?
The Pat Robertson mode that he gets into sometimes can be grating on the ears. Otherwise, it's a good show. I wished that Mike Trout came back after his little marital indiscretion but something tells me he got a divorce.
I still don't get it....what's wrong with what Mr. Dobson said? Why shouldn't he speak out against Specter?
Are you blind? These are two separate questions. Each one has its own block. I posted one, after you posted the other. REMEMBER??? One question asks what religion you belong to: "VOTE BY RELIGION". Right below it is a different question that asks are you a: "WHITE EVANGELICAL/BORN-AGAIN?" They are two different questions.
>>>>BTW, I notice that not all of the Evangelicals voted for Bush.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. 21-million voted for Bush and 6-million voted for Kerry. So what.
Characterize it however you wish.
I have gone to Jim a couple of times, when your petty little games have gone too far in sniping at conservatives, in exact contradiction of Jim's clearly expressed wishes.
Still bitter about your little vacation?
You really need to see the questionaire to determine this. It would tell you whether the you a: "WHITE EVANGELICAL/BORN-AGAIN? was asked of Jews and others, or whether it was asked of Catholics. It could well have been a follow up question. Common sense doesn't necessarily apply to polling.
Well, thanks for finally getting the right answer.
The are the SAME CATEGORY, but the second questioin is a qualifier for the first one; all the second one is a a percentage of the voters who answered under "Votes by Religion" who consider themselves evangelicals or born-again; they are included in the Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, None, and Other Categories. So it's 23 percent of those who consider themselvees belonging to ANY religion, not a separate one.
So your statement:
"The Religious Right as a voting block accounted for 23% of all voters in this last election."
is wrong.
They accounted for 23 percent of the people who identified themselves as belonging to a religion. And since some voted for Kerry, only 18 percent of the Evangelicals actually voted for Bush.
That's the way I've always seen it; something like "Do you consider yourself to be a born-again Christian?"
No you don't.
When you get an Exit Poll, the questions are asked of everyone who participates. The questions are specific. That's why you have 23% who answered YES, I'm a member of the "Religious Right" and 77% who answered NO, I am not a member of the "Religious Right".
Clearly you know far more about polls than I do. The occasional poll I've seen does, in fact, use follow ups.
For example, religion, Jewish, on to the next question and skip the White Evangelical question, which is clearly irrelevant. Same would apply if a race question was asked earlier, if you're not white, you can't be a white evangelical.
The results look reasonably accurate to me. If Kerry got 21% of the 23% Evangelical vote, and 56% of the not Evangelical, that would get him to 47.9%, about right.
But there's no was of knowing how they got there without seeing the questionaire. If you're right, then Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Blacks could have answered yes to the White Evangelical question, thus the results are completely flawed. If they used sub questions, the results might be reasonably accurate.
>>>>Well, thanks for finally getting the right answer.
You can do better then that, Howlin. I've been telling you from the get-go that these are two separate questions. You're the one whose been attempting to link them and for good reason. You have NO specific data and NO relevent info to back up your silly assertions. And now you're attempting to obfuscate the issue by employing sophistry. Wont' work.
>>>>The are the SAME CATEGORY, but the second questioin is a qualifier for the first one
Not true. Two different questions. One has nothing to do with the other.
>>>>So your statement:
"The Religious Right as a voting block accounted for 23% of all voters in this last election."
is wrong.
You haven't proven me wrong, because you can't prove the exit polling data wrong. I'm totally correct. 23% of voters identified themselevs as members of the Religious Right and as I pointed out in an ealier post to you, PresBush received 78% of the "Religious Right" vote.
Either you don't know how to read basic exit poll data, or you're in total denial. My monies on the latter.
Not as bitter as you seem to be about yet another failed campaign.
Actually, I thought your "Get rid of the people who disagree with me or I'm leaving!" tantrum was hilarious - that alone was worth a few days off.
Not true. Two different questions. One has nothing to do with the other.
So you're saying that NO Protestants or Catholics consider themselves evangelical or born-again?
And are you also saying, then, that the 41 percent who identified themselves as gun owners don't count themselves in Male or Female, or Religion or any of the other categories? That's the only explanation for the way you are using that number.
That's silly; if you'd ever taken a poll yourself, you'd know they ask you if you are religious, if so what religion, and then do you consider yourself part of what is called evangelical and/or born-again, i.e., the Religious Right. They are ALL the same numbers.
Hey, I said I was leaving as long as the anti-Keyes haters had free play.
Came back 24 hours later, because Jim called a halt.
If you had listened to him, you wouldn't have gotten suspended.
Let me say this. The most reliable poll around, is the one taken on election day. On this past election day, some exit poll data was leaked to the MSM. The MSM turned around and misreported the early results to give the false impression that Kerry was leading Bush. But generally speaking, exit polls contain reliable data. Are they 100% accurate? Of course not. Are there variables that should be considered when reviewing exit poll data? Definitely. However, there is absolutely no evidence that indicates, the questions in question do not stand alone on their own merit. And anyone attempting to link one question with another, is setting up their own standards and not taking the data at face value.
Thanks for perserving in the face of such willful ignorance.
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
As I say, your little tantrum was hilarious.
Well, it reined you in a little at least.
If you and your friends had 100% free play, FR would become worthless to anyone who cares about forwarding the conservative movement.
As I noted, the data, re: the Evangelical question seems to follow the actual results. However your contension that questions must "stand alone" is false. It's not a matter of "linking questions", other than for accuracy. A poll that asks blacks, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, or those with no religion if they're white Evangelicals, by definition of asking allowing a "yes" answer, are also by definition unreliable. What they did here one can't know without seeing the questionaire.
Speaking of willful, did you miss SJackson's post up the thread where he found where your own organizations EMAIL claimed just what I said it did?
This entire conversation is worthless.
Who had who banned and how they got that way? You both have more to offer on debate: I've seen it.
And that's what's important to you, isn't it? Controlling the dialog.
I seriously doubt it has reigned her in -- or, for that matter, any of the others who were either suspended or got notes from Jim -- it just proves that she knows we have "special circumstances" around here for the likes of you.
Well, thank you EV.
Here's a clue - the conservative movement doesn't move forward unless the conservative candidates win.
And the campaign y'all ran in Illinois wasn't designed to win.
Have any of your candidates ever won?
I didn't run the campaign in Illinois. What gave you that idea?
I think we want strict constructionists judges who won't try to legislate from the bench, in either direction.
It's an open question whether or not any of the justices other than probably Reinquist will need to be replaced, so a lot of this argument is "sound and fury, signifying nothing" at this point in time. Speculation. Counting chickens before they hatch. Etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.