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."
Opps, see you were first to correct him. Thanks for your post..
You don’t give up, do you! :(
*rolling eyes*
Oh brother. This journalistic whining doesn’t change the FACT that abortion is a non-negotiable issue. Killing babies is killing babies. There’s no way around that.
It is a crook piece, just like the one you put up last night.
Only if you buy into the GroupThink Worldview of the reporter and James Dobson. I don't know who is more presumptious, the reporter or Dobson.
Some of us both of them apparently bottle up in the curiously invective Religious Right which is anathema to the Reporter's camp and carried like a crown by Dobson. Some of us came by our belief in the veracity of the Gospel by the weight of historic evidence, and self examination in the presence of One we believe to be the Holy Spirit, who testifies to the Truth of Christ's testimony, and that of his disciples who reported of it, without the aid of Popular Christianity.
Excuse me, folks, and most especially my fellow Christians, however ye may have come upon Christ, or who we're found rather than sought and discovered, but I don't know this Dobson character, except by reputation.
I'm fairly certain he's a fine man, but I don't follow him. His point, that a large swath of the Church in America will likely "stay home" if the GOP ignores, or worse dismisses this large part of their base is well taken, many of those the Reporter presumes to be part of this "Religious Right" will decide to evade their responsibility as citizens and will decide by deciding not to choose a lesser of two evils.
Nevertheless, not all. We are electing a executive, hiring a Vainglorious Manager, not (and my Catholic Brethren will forgive me) "electing a Pope."
More of "us" can think for ourselves, and this Christian will exercise that which is not a privilege but a responsibility. We will vote for someone... If Guiliani is nominated, I will indeed choose him over Hillary Clinton, a demonstrably and dangerously incompetent Made-Up Marxist. However, the Right comes in MANY colors, and flavors, and, personally, I think America's Mayor will have a harder time than some others the GOP might choose. It should be noted that I don't buy the hype about Hillary. I have a hard time imagining her getting much above 45 percent of the popular vote, and it take just a bit more than that size plurality to win the Electoral College. Oh, I don't underestimate Senator Clinton. I just think the Democrats are way too full of themselves, and too few and too young, by and large, to remember 1972 or 1980. There is a smell of McGovern all over their confidence, and that burnt hair tang of Mondale. Along with the MSM, they make for a noisy Echo Chamber. They have forgotten 1994, and Mrs. Clinton's Cackle shows a what a strain it is for her to win the hearts of those for whom she has so little respect. It shows.
Regardless, to paraphrase John Kennedy, Dobson does not speak for me, and I don't speak for Dobson.
Dobson is the Republicans’ Je$$e Jack$on. I am as conservative as they come but the “religious right” is beginning to scare the hell out of me.
I agee. And I also agree that I will not support a pro-abortion candidate. Ever. Not for any reason. It would be treasonous to God and would make me complicit in the murder of children. In addition, Rudy even supports Federally Funding abortion....taking MY money and using it to kill someone's baby.
I cannot believe there are Republicans who insist on Rudy knowing that it will mean a Hillary victory. I can only assume they desire some kind of Clinton presidency.
The proper choice for Dobson is Duncan Hunter. Hunter could use a big boost. He has matchless credentials in this race, and he is all that Dobson and religious conservatives are looking for. In that Dobson didn't just keep silent about Thompson but instead boost Hunter, I can only say that Dobson blew a golden opportunity.
Finally, there is little significant difference between Thompson and Pres. Bush. Thompson might be a little less of a compassionate conservative, but he is not pro-choice, and that's a good starting point so far as I'm concerned.
In case you do not know, a group of prominent Christian men went to RR and convinced run, telling the former President that they would see to it that he won. Then these leaders went home and went to work. The rest is history.
I geuss I wouldn’t get Dobson’s endorsement either.
And the point of your story is?
Christians should work harder?
Only a fool continues to do business with someone who cheats them.
Then don't vote for Rudy.
There are millions of Republicans, like me, who will not vote for Rudy Giuliani under any circumstances. Keep that in mind when you vote in the primaries.
I am one of those millions of republicans who will NOT under any circumstances vote for Rudy. Once he mouthed off in S. Carolina about Federally Funding Abortion, he was finished. He already knew that the pro-life wing of the party had serious questions about him.
And the next sentence out of his mouth was a slap in the face: It’s as if he said - “not only do I support abortion, I want to make you pay, and I’ll cram it down your throat.”
I can only assume that Satan himself advised him on that one. No sane campaign manager would has said such a thing. With those lines, Rudy told me that he doesn’t want my vote and that I could take a hike. So be it.
Subtract millions of votes from Bush in his run against Kerry and ask yourself who would’ve won the presidency?
Why would any republican insist on Rudy and throw this race to Hillary? It’s beyond my comprehension.
Yes, my point is that Conservative Christians should work harder to elect people that share our like views. Only a fool would not see that bit of wisdom.
More likely, you will see a third party candidate who unites the far right and the far right, like Ron Paul. The left and the right against the middle.
If a third party candidate that unites the far right and the far left emerges, then that would open the door for another third party candidate that unites the moderate right and moderate left, like Mike Bloomberg
..and almost lost the country...(may yet still)
How long you been at this CC?
The Conservative Christians have been handing the republicans victories since Reagan and we have less to show for it than we did then.
You offer no wisdom, only gainsaying.
If the GOP follows the Democrats and starts to demonstrate an outright animus towards everything these people stand for, then they have absolutely no reason to support Republican candidates anymore -- and so-called "conservatives" here on FreeRepublic (and elsewhere) have nobody to blame for the demise of the Republican Party than Republicans themselves.
If we cannot judge then we cannot vote. There is absolutely no way to choose between two or more candidates without judgment. That is unless you choose by enie meenie minie moe, flip a coin or draw straws.
Dobson, the prominent Christian conservative who believes that his religious brethren have the God-given right to vet Republican presidential candidates....
All I need to read.
I would remind the “social conservatives” that it’s only ever “all about who gets nominated to the supreme court.” Go ahead and jump ship....and see who the left nominates.
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.