Posted on 09/19/2007 7:14:10 PM PDT by pissant
DENVER (AP) — James Dobson, one of the nation's most politically influential evangelical Christians, made it clear in a message to friends this week he will not support Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson.
In a private e-mail obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, Dobson accuses the former Tennessee senator and actor of being weak on the campaign trail and wrong on issues dear to social conservatives.
"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote.
"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' 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!"
The founder and chairman of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, Dobson draws a radio audience in the millions, many of whom who first came to trust the child psychologist for his conservative Christian advice on child-rearing.
Gary Schneeberger, a Focus on the Family spokesman, confirmed that Dobson wrote the e-mail. Schneeberger declined to comment further, saying it would be inappropriate because Dobson's comments about presidential candidates are made as an individual and not as a representative of Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization restricted from partisan politics.
Dobson's strong words about Thompson underscore the frustration and lack of unity among Christian conservatives about the GOP field. Some Christian right leaders have pinned their hopes on Thompson, describing him as a Southern-fried Ronald Reagan. But others have voiced doubts in recent weeks about some of the same issues Dobson highlighted: his position on gay marriage and support for the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation.
Dobson and other Christian conservatives support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would bar gay marriage nationally. Thompson has said he would support a constitutional amendment that would prohibit states from imposing their gay marriage laws on other states, which falls well short of that.
Karen Hanretty, a spokeswoman for the Thompson campaign, said Wednesday in response to the Dobson e-mail: "Fred Thompson has a 100 percent pro-life voting record. He believes strongly in returning authority to the levels of government closest to families and communities, protecting states from intrusion by the federal government and activist judges.
"We're confident as voters get to know Fred, they'll appreciate his conservative principles, and he is the one conservative in this race who can win the nomination and can go on to defeat the Democratic nominee."
In his e-mail addressed "Dear friends," Dobson includes the text of a recent news story highlighting Thompson's statement that while he was baptized in the Church of Christ, he does not attend church regularly and won't speak about his faith on the stump.
U.S. News and World Report quoted Dobson earlier this year as questioning Thompson's commitment to the Christian faith — comments Dobson contended were not put in proper context. Dobson in this week's e-mail writes that suppositions "about the former senator's never having professed to be a Christian are turning out to be accurate in substance."
Earlier this year, Dobson said he wouldn't back John McCain because of the Arizona senator's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Later, Dobson wrote on a conservative news Web site that he wouldn't support former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani should he win the Republican nomination. Dobson called Giuliani an "unapologetic supporter of abortion on demand" and criticized him for signing a bill in 1997 creating domestic-partnership benefits in New York City.
Last week, Dobson announced on his radio show that the IRS had cleared him of accusations that he had endangered his organization's nonprofit status by endorsing Republican candidates in 2004. The IRS said Dobson, who endorsed President Bush's re-election bid, was acting as an individual and not on behalf of the nonprofit group.
You think Dobson said that Fred was “not a Christian”? Where do you get your news from? He didn’t say that. He admitted to a reporter that he didn’t know Fred’s spiritual state, that’s all.
What do you expect??
In reply #3 an LDS member hopped in with a Romney comparison.
Using that old $1.5 million in tax dollars phoniness, hm? You know Robertson doesn’t take a salary with CBN, right? No, I guess you didn’t. Did you know that he personally has given well over $200 million to non-profits? No, I guess you didn’t. Don’t want to shatter your anti-Christian bent.
Why so anti-Christian, radioman? Did a Christian do you wrong one day?
Let US create....
sure indicates at least a binary...
LDS members are welcome here. But theological discussions are best in the religion forum. Personally, I don’t support Mitt or Fred, and it has nuttin to do with their religions or lack thereof.
I appreciate your continued efforts to speak the truth in the face of Joseph Smith’s lies. It befuddles me that people truly believe him to be a prophet of God, the one through whom God “corrected” the Church (meaning the body of Christians and Christendom). Spending some time researching the foundation of this cult would seem to be sufficient to turn someone away from Mormonism and toward the Lord.
and it’s my first time EVER!!
(Psst... what’s it MEAN??)
How nice that American church didn't have to deal with those distasteful poor people! They could focus on important things like building grand cathedrals and growing mega churches and even sending missionaries to poor countries instead of dealing with the filth in our own streets...
I don't see a taxation clause in the church's mandate. The church, as a whole, has sold their collective souls for tax exempt status. The funny thing is churches are automatically tax exempt. You don't even need to file for 501c3 status. The only "advantage" to this is the protection of assets for church officials.
There are still many individuals and churches working in the field, but, as a whole, the Church has little authority left in a sphere that is rightfully hers.
Fair enough.
Well... it’s not in the RELIGION area yet, so it’s still ok to PERSONALLY zap each other.
Do you think this was a direct response to Dobson? If so, that’s a good thing that Dobson did there.
//////////////
Yes and Yes.
Now certainly being in the garage doesn't make you a car; but, it's safe to say, that if you take an older-model car in say...say a high-hail damage area...
...and then tell me that said car never makes it into a home garage, a hometown parking garage, a hometown carwash, or any type of hometown "cover"...
...I think we can safely conclude that the car's owner has little respect for the damage that a "life of hail" (so to speak) can do to cars & just "shines" on protective covers...to the point that I as the owner's insurance agent could expect such a car to possibly being "salvaged" one day--possibly "salvaged" unto pieces--not necessarily "salvaged" unto restoration.
Heck!
He could only keep POLYGAMY, that great thing that insured women's salvation, for 47 years!
Yes...
You’ve been warned before:
Quit using published LDS texts to show how complex our thinking is required to be!
—MormonDude(Confused by LDS history)
This one is getting a workout!
(Yes; it IS included in the Authorized Inspired Version.)
http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/hsfore.htm
Stop it. (You've been reading too many direct promise quotes that the dashing Joey-come-courter wielded to the families of the young ladies he propositioned).
Bwahahaha ... “But, but, but he didn’t have sex with anyone but Emma ‘cause we’ve been told to use that argument when Joey’s adulterous marriages to still married women arises. Now you’re confusing me ...” (channeling Mormon dudette)
I see the church as having forgotten what we were told to do...be salt and light unto this world. The church, sometime in the mid 1950’s, lost something. It became fat and happy. The church turned inwards and settled itself to just being there. The church didn’t put up much of a fight and before it was too late ungodly men were being elected, rights were being stripped away and abominations were being discovered as “constitutional” rights.
You always here about the “silent” majority. It’s the “silent” part that has gotten us into this mess we see today.
(You better be careful. You "channel" some folks too long, & the next thing ya know you've passed "beyond the veil" & that LDS spirit personality inside of you may just be able to talk his way past the LDS spirit-prison guards & then what? "Then what?" you say? Well, you just may wind up in polygamous Kolob Heights, with a mixture of 72 virgins AND non-virgins, all depending on how many are still sealing themselves to you even after your tombstone was erected).
(So much for Mormons pretending they think "polygamy" is purely a yester-year "concept")
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.