Posted on 01/31/2008 7:46:47 AM PST by kalee
Edited on 01/31/2008 7:51:50 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Christian right leaders are abuzz today because a new online candidate guide that has been posted by Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of Jim Dobson's conservative Christian empire. The webpage offers edited excerpts of recent webcasts with the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, explaining where the candidates stand on "pro-family issues."
(Excerpt) Read more at time-blog.com ...
Too little too late . Dobson should feel like a fool for not backing Thompson from the start . Hope he enjoys McPain as the nominee ...
From the article... “Mitt Romney has acknowledged that Mormonism is not a Christian faith,” Minnery adds. “But on the social issues we are so similar.”
This was the most surprising statement in the article.
Too little too late . Dobson should feel like a fool for not backing Thompson from the start . Hope he enjoys McPain as the nominee ...
_____________________________________
Nod. The straightline conservatives screwed up by not working with the evangelicals from the start in picking their horse. Same goes for the religious right. Both wings screwed up — and will lose in this primary season because of it.
to read later
Exactly .
I feel perfectly competent to make my own choices as to who would be the best POTUS.
Exactly. And what good is a STEALTH endorsement supposed to do if no one notices it? Dobson was in a snit because Thompson correctly judged that a constitutional nomination was the wrong way to go. So, now he's blown it all.
I don’t understand the “stealth” aspect either . Dobson’s inaction has been just as bizarre as Robertson’s Rudy endorsement .
IF this is true...my heart is broken.
I will read/watch later, and see if true.
I too have been disappointed....wanted him to desperately endorse Duncan Hunter.
The silence has bothered me, and I'm a faithful Dobson supporter.
Later....
Hey Dobson.. your mouth is making noise.. you might want to see to that.
I wish he would have kept his overlarge pie-hole shut from the get-go. The whole situation would likely have been different now.
Flame away, evangelicals, now that I have attacked your Maximum Leader. I don’t really care.
You should feel like a fool for acting like you rule over everyone else's opinions, endorsements, and votes. You don't!
I was disappointed in Dobson for refusing to support Thompson, who (along with Hunter) was the strongest pro-life conservative in the Presidential race.
However, Fred chose to be the “last to come to work and the first to leave.” And that is not a recipe for success in any area of life.
Your post is inane and childish .
Dobson is reaping what he has sown and of course he is free to support who he wants . I bet he wishes he had done a few things differently though ....
From the article... “Mitt Romney has acknowledged that Mormonism is not a Christian faith,” Minnery adds. “But on the social issues we are so similar.”
This was the most surprising statement in the article.
_____________________________________________________________
I don’t believe Mitt said that. No way.
Also, Thompson did not do much by way of reaching out to the social conservative community ("I don't care about Dobson," opposed to the pro-life Republican platform, etc.)
But no, it's all the fault of Dobson and those e-e-e-vil evangelicals. Whatever.
“Flame away, evangelicals, now that I have attacked your Maximum Leader. I don’t really care.”
I don’t think you really understand how evangelicals think. We are Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not some hierarchical order of who will tell us what to do and when. We’re textbook free-thinkers.
Your vitriol is aimed in the wrong direction here. Take it up with Dobson.
“Evangelicals backed a pro life liberal who has steadily changed his message as the campaign wore on.”
I think you post should read “some evangelicals in a couple of states...”
Don’t pin that on all of us. I don’t really think Iowa is a huge bastion of evangelicals(or conservatives), anyway.
LG ... sorry, I meant to quote the other part of your post. It sounds like I’m taking issue with you, when I’m actually agreeing with you. :-)
Shrug. Contempt for your allies doesn’t win elections.
Its a generalization but I hope we are not so PC that we now have to say "now I don't mean all evangelicals just some of them." If Evangelicals are not his base, who is, John Edwards supporters?
I can’t believe he said it either. I wonder what he said though that made them think he said what they claim.
By the way, I used to think Huck supporters were our allies but they are not really. They don't really care about taxes or individual freedom as opposed to life issues. In other words a pro life Hillary would probably be fine with them. Thats not an ally of mine. That is the only explanation unless they were too lazy to find out what the guy was really about.
I gotta run but I will respond in a couple of hours.
“Look, every time I say evangelicals someone asks me not to lump them in. That is who is backing him and giving his most of his support.”
I don’t know a single fellow evangelical(in this or any other state) who is backing Huckabee. Everyone I know sees him for what he is: a media-hyped spoiler. Unfortunately, the REAL conservative states haven’t even had a chance to vote yet, and our choices have dwindled to zero.
I’m not sure who has voted for him...I guess some people who didn’t take the time to check him out, along with some “independents” and democrats. I don’t really think he has fooled very many evangelicals.
Once again, shrug. I was a Thompson supporter too. What I really wanted was the evangelical leaders to notice the perfect candidate in Duncan Hunter and take the long shot — give him a chance. They either didn’t get it or hedged their bets or whatever . . . BUT Fred dissed them as well, he didn’t reach out well if at all, and paid a price for that.
A “pro-life” Hillary would by necessity bring the ideals of a strict constitutional constructionist as well, in order to get rid of Roe v. Wade, which would make her an almost impossible to concieve of Democrat. A whole penumbra of political positions stem from a position opposed to Roe v. Wade . . . to use the language of Roe itself. It’s an unlikely hypothetical.
I agree that the evangelical “leaders” need to get real about the limits of politics and necessity for compromise. But the attitude of the secular conservatives that evangelicals should just come along for the ride on whoever the secular conservatives happen to favor needs to end as well.
I have listened to Dobson for years. He is a pompous man with a very large ego. He is out of touch with middle America!
Bump to that.
I’m a Huckabee supporter and a Christian. I started as a Hunter supporter, then reluctantly moved to Fred. After Fred dropped I decided that I couldn’t support McCain or Romney. Who is left? Huckabee.
Bump to that.
Being pro life doesn't mean you have to be a strict constructionist. You can be pro life but not pro liberty or pro pursuit of happiness. Hillary could say "I am now pro life" but keep every other ideal she holds and not be inconsistent. She could even say "I want a Constitutional amendment" knowing she will never get it.
The bottom line is that conservative Republicans want to use the various “evangelical leaders” (they are a disparate and disorganized group politically and theologically — divided by denomination etc.) to bring candidates to the attention of the members of whatever group it is, whether Focus on the Family, or whatever. Fact is that these “leaders” may not give a rats patootie about the candidate that the conservatives like. That’s why, in the cases of those leaders that do get involved in politics, it would probably be a good idea to get them on board early in the process, even before announcing a candidacy.
You hadn't.....I'm deeply disappointed in the mealy mouth attitude of Minnery/Perkins who are suppose to be discerning.
Very disappointed.
I saw a whole bunch of Huckster’s supporters last week. A local church had a rally for himat a major intersection. The church gathered up those people in their church vans to take them there.
“”A “pro-life” Hillary would by necessity bring the ideals of a strict constitutional constructionist as well, in order to get rid of Roe v. Wade””
You DONT have to be a strict constructionist to be pro-life or anti-Roe. There are plenty of folks out there who wouldn’t know the content of the Constitution if it leapt up, shouted “Boo” and bit them on the nose. Yet they are pro-life. The two things do not of necessity come together.
“I saw a whole bunch of Huckster’s supporters last week. A local church had a rally for himat a major intersection. The church gathered up those people in their church vans to take them there.”
That wouldn’t be the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, would it? ;-)
Seriously, my church never tells people how to vote. They put out cards that have candidates’ stands on the major issues, but I have never seen or heard any church official advising people (in his official capacity) who to vote for.
Exactly - I can’t understand how Dobson could have early on taken a gratuitous shot at Thompson when the candidate field was dominated by liberal Republicans and the insane McCain.
Not unless you heard of a car accident involving them being run over by a small truck as they stood too close to a road. Oops. That’s gonna leave a mark.
No, it was one of our local places here. They had about 20-30 people out there waving signs and yelling and such.
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.