Posted on 10/03/2007 12:35:32 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Back in May 2000, I learned firsthand that James Dobson is a tough man to please.
Dobson, the prominent Christian conservative who believes that his religious brethren have the God-given right to vet Republican presidential candidates, invited some political journalists to dine with him at his headquarters in Colorado Springs. As we silently forked our pasta salads, Dobson explained why he was so disappointed in frontrunner George W. Bush.
Bush, apparently, was not sufficiently conservative, because he had not yet categorically renounced the idea of choosing Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge as his running mate. Ridge was a defender of abortion rights, and this triggered Dobson's ire. Basically, he was threatening to bolt the GOP and take his followers (four million listeners, six million on his e-mail list) along with him.
That day, he told us: "A [party] that abandons the unborn child would send a significant number of people to look for another party to represent them. . . . It wouldn't take much. You cannot contradict, you cannot insult the base of your support. . . . I know the Christian community. I hear from 280,000 of them per month."
Bush, of course, did not choose Ridge, and Dobson stayed in the fold. But you get the idea. Dobson will vet only those GOP candidates whom he deems to be true believers. Political compromise is for the sinners.
Which brings us to the present moment, an unhappy one for Dobson - and for all his religious-right compatriots. They just can't seem to find an '08 Republican candidate who conforms to their ideals. And this is potentially significant, because Christian conservatives constitute roughly one-third of the GOP electorate; it's rough for a Republican to win a general election if that much of the base is dissatisfied.
Over the weekend, in Salt Lake City, the religious-right leaders conducted a private emergency meeting, in the hopes of sorting out the situation. Dobson reportedly flew in. The upshot: They're threatening to bolt the GOP and urge their followers to do the same if abortion-rights defender Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination next year. They signed onto a resolution stating that, "if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate, we will consider running a third-party candidate."
Democrats, of course, would be thrilled if Dobson and his friends followed through on their threat. But that prospect is a long way off. What's noteworthy right now is that religious-right leaders are dividing into two camps: the purists and the pragmatists.
The purists, in search of a savior, find fault with most of the current GOP crop. Many of them dislike former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, for instance, because he once did some lobbying for an abortion-rights group, because he seems insufficiently committed to supporting a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and because he seems insufficiently churchgoing. As Dobson railed in a recent e-mail to his followers, "He has no passion, no zeal. . . . And yet he is apparently the great hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
(Here's where it gets really complicated: Some of the purists do like Thompson and believe that Dobson is being unfair.)
Anyway, the purists don't like Giuliani either, for the aforementioned reason, and because he has a messy personal history. They don't like Arizona Sen. John McCain because he has warred with the religious-right leaders in the past. And they're wary of Mitt Romney, because of their suspicions of his Mormon faith, and because Romney now professes to be for their issues, after years of being against their issues.
But the religious-right leaders can't even agree among themselves on how to proceed. The pragmatists include Gary Bauer, who joined the weekend summit by phone and reportedly warned that he and his colleagues should refrain from infighting, lest the nation wind up with Hillary Clinton in the White House. On the other hand, Bauer also made some purist noises, by agreeing with his colleagues that if an abortion-rights defender wins the nomination, "it will blow up the GOP."
At this point, there's probably only one thing that Giuliani can do to tamp down this incipient revolt. He'll probably need to address the assembled religious-right leaders and conveniently arrange for his cell phone to ring midway through:
"Excuse me, let me get this. . . . 'Hello? Hiiiiiii . . . Well, I'd love to talk, but I'm kind of busy right now. . . . Can't wait to talk to you privately, just you and me. . . . Yes, I love our relationship, too. . . . Love you, bye.' . . . Sorry for the interruption, folks. That was God."
Yeah, if you think throwing a tantrum is the way to woo the religious right.
Seems to me the best move on their part would be to pick a candidate, get behind them fully, and push the agenda as time goes on, rather than demanding it on the frontside. Perhaps that’s the whole point, they’re seeking the best ‘offer.’ With so many Supremes possibly in the balance, plus a massive chance at a good coattails run to retake the House (I don’t think there’s any way to retake the Senate at this point), now’s the time to push forward, not to the sidelines.
But please; what the heck is it with the stupidly quoted reasons? Romney’s Mormonism an issue? What, anyone seriously think that he could even name his stake president without some adviser supplying the answer? Hello, the guy was the governor of the only state that presently permits gays to enter into the same union as a man and a woman? RomneyCare? But his faith is the part they’re questioning? Unsatisfied with Fred’s lack of thrill at the idea of turning the constitution into a dictionary?
I understand that the drive by media’s goal is to marginalize the religious in this country, unless they’re something other than a Christian faith. But can the religious stop trying so hard to marginalize themselves?
Perhaps the republican party should try throwing the dog a bone every decade or so instead of wondering why the dog tries to bite every time they kick it.
Yeah, we learned America survived, and supporting the republican party changed absolutely nothing social conservatives care about.
I think it's a safe bet the one thing in the entire universe a Christian will never be allowed to forget by non-christians is Matthew 7:1.
You’d be dismayed at the number of people who have never heard of Ross (Under the Hood) Perot. It’s tragic.
NOT Giuliani
NOT Thompson
NOT Romney
NOT McCain
Then, pray tell, who?
Instead of trying to pull down the frontrunners, perhaps Dobson and his minions should be spending their energy promoting own their man/woman for the job.
What are they doing to put forth a candidate whom we all can support?
Maybe they can use their influence to persuade Haley Barbour to run, or to push Duncan Hunter to the top of the heap. Threatening to bolt from the party or sit out the election is not going to help anyone, except Hillary.
...and perhaps Dobson and co should keep well out of party politics.
Tell us what you think Jesus would do Mr Preacher, and let us (under the influence of the Holy Spirit) make up our own minds.
kingu wrote: “But please; what the heck is it with the stupidly quoted reasons?”
Agreed. The article is ridiculous. I don’t speak for all Christians, but Romney’s Mormonism is WAY down there on the list of reasons why I wouldn’t vote for him.
papertyger wrote: “I think it’s a safe bet the one thing in the entire universe a Christian will never be allowed to forget by non-christians is Matthew 7:1.”
So true. That verse is oft-quoted but so misunderstood. How are Christians able to minister and correct their brethren, avoid false prophets, or purge the church of heretics if we are unable to judge?
wai-ming wrote: “We got your message, Mr. Dobson.”
The MSM overestimates the power of these religious leaders. Dobson’s limited ability to influence believers will evaporate instantly if he ever departs from scripture or if his integrity is ever suspect. Christians vote because of our core beliefs—not because some so-called kingmaker tells us what to do. Our allegiance is to the true King.
I believe Dobson was ready to throw his support to Gingrich (he had Gingrich on his show a few months back.) But since Gingrich says he won’t run, I, too, wonder who he’s backing.
I, personally, found him being an apologist for Gingrich (he gave Gingrich a platform to “explain” about his past marriages), to be a little sickening. I’ve often wondered, especially after Dobson stepped down as the President of Focus on the Family, if Dobson didn’t have political aspirations of his own.
A third party in 2008 will ensure a Hillary victory as President, because like her husband, she will never win a majority of the vote.
A third party candidate, no matter how principled, will weaken the GOP and siphon off enough votes to give Hillary 45-48% of the vote, thus she will win.
I know how Perot hurt us, not only on 1992, but again in 1996. In 1992 he got 20% of the vote—I was one of them. But we got Bill Clinton. Then in 1996, Perot got 10%—I didn’t vote for him then, because Clinton had to be defeated, but that didn’t work either.
The only good thing that came out of the 1992 election was the GOP woke up and the 1994 GOP wins in Congress were terrific. But the GOP squandered this gift of power, and lost it in a mere 12 years(whereas the Dems were in control of Congress for over forty years previously).
All this being said, after 2008, if the GOP doesn’t fly right, they are going the way of the Whigs. If they don’t learn from 2006, and the jury is still out on that,they deserve to fade into history. Their sad stewardship of such a hard won battle for power has been a personal disappointment as well as a national tragedy, especially in the midst of the War on Terror and the culture wars we are enmeshed in.
Thanks for quoting the single most misapplied scripture in the Book.
Christ was NOT saying that righteous men (not Christians, as there really weren't any when he spoke) should not judge, in the sense of applying laws and principles. He was saying that righteous men should not judge others unless they are willing to have the same standards applied to themselves.
He was denouncing hypocrisy, not judgmentalism.
I don’t believe any Christian should presume to judge the heart of another. Only God can do that!
While accurate, this statement is irrelevant to the discussion. The men Christ spoke to were judging a woman's crime, not her heart.
Who? (Pray Tell) Mike Huckabee.
Well said!
You conviently forgot "YE HYPOCRITE" for some reason... Who is not to judge? Hypocrites... then futher in the verse it tells hypocrites how to clean up their act and start judging.
"Judge Rightly" is not some person's name you know !
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.