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.
Will Thompson’s “First Principles” Win the Day David Brody
On the campaign trail, Fred Thompson talks a lot about “first principles”. This is the core of it right here:
“In 1994 when I first ran, I advocated the same common sense conservative positions that I hold today. They are based upon what I believe to be sound conservative First Principles -- reflecting the nature of man and the wisdom of the ages. They are based upon the conviction that our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are not outdated documents that have outlived their usefulness. It is a recognition that our basic rights come from God and not from government. That government should have its power divided, not only at the federal level but between the federal government and the states. Federalism is the belief that not every problem should have a federal solution. Essentially it's about freedom. A government that is big enough to do everything for us is powerful enough to do anything to us.”Rewind 25 years. This was Ronald Reagan in 1981: (see the bolded words)“We've gone astray from first principles. We've lost sight of the rule that individual freedom and ingenuity are at the very core of everything that we've accomplished. Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.”.This was Reagan in his 1989 farewell Speech:“As long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours.”And then Reagan in 1993:“Presidents come and go. History comes and goes, but principles endure...”Folks, this is pretty simple. Mitt Romney may have more detailed white papers, Rudy Giuliani has his well laid out twelve commitments and those strategies seem to be working well for those campaigns. But Fred Thompson is going in another direction. He’s not going to compete with them on who has more 10 point plans on every issue. He’s going to attempt to do what Ronald Reagan did. The philosophy here is that when you’re President, circumstances may change but your principles must not.Thompson believes there’s an opening to differentiate himself here by essentially saying “Here are my principles and I’ll be consistent by in making every decision based on them.” It could very well position Thompson above the rest of the candidates as someone who is talking more about broad themes and vision rather than policy wonk talk. Reagan had an ability to do this and communicate it well and connect with voters. Thompson seems like he has that ability too. Someone who can speak the language of voters, come across as sincere and stick to conservative principles.
Remember, at the end of the day, the person with the most ideas doesn’t necessarily win. The smartest person in the room doesn’t either. It’s the person who connects emotionally with voters. That usually makes the difference. Sometimes we in the media over think it and it’s actually rather simple. Maybe Thompson’s first principles will resonate with America. It reminds me a little of “School House Rock.” Remember those cartoons from the 1970s? Maybe the Thompson campaign should cue up this clip and insert their own words. Click here.
*************************************************
Like you, I believe Dobson is a good man, even a great man, but he has made big mistakes like all of us. He supported Harriet Myers (SP) for the supreme court. What a loss if we had ended up with her instead of John Roberts.
Godpeed,
Dobson accuses the former Tennessee senator and actor of being weak on the campaign trail and wrong on issues dear to social conservatives
***Duncan Hunter has a fire in the belly. If he would invite Dobson on the ticket as VP, he’d get the name recognition he deserves. That’d energize the base.
The entire social welfare problem stems from the church to begin with! If the church hadn’t abdicated her responsibilities, the country wouldn’t be in such shape!””
Finally something we can agree upon. During a recent bible study at our church I developed a discussion on whether or not the problems of the world today are the result of the church not doing its duty to be salt and light. The talk was basically that, yes, the church got fat happy and content and pulled its head in like a turtle during the latter half of the 1950s and early 1960s. But part of the problem tends to be that the church didn’t fight for the hearts of the people. They didn’t grow a generation of righteous kids....instead they abandoned their duties and look what has happened. The problem is not laws, we have plenty of those, the problem lies in the culture...that is where the real battle is being fought. If you win that battle, you win the war. As the culture goes, so goes the nations laws. If you have a culture that is polar opposite of the laws, you have problems. We see it today. We have a permissive culture, anything goes. Say you pass a law banning homosexual marriage....it would not last because of the culture. Change the culture, you change the laws.
Make sense?
No, I’m not “begotten” from the Father. Only Jesus is. I’m “adopted.” Big difference.
Lucifer is an angel. Again, he is not “begotten.”
Your doctrine, sorry to say, is a mess. Totally unbiblical. Study Scripture and you’ll see for yourself. Joseph and his writings are fiction.
They usually have a reception following the Temple wedding where everyone has a lot of fun. I’ve been to a few of those and had a blast. No one gets drunk and there’s dancing.
I have never attended a Temple wedding. I hear it’s absolutely holy. It’s not an earthly ordinance. There’s nothing “creepy” about the Temple.
I just remembered something really creepy. When I got married the first time - in a Catholic Church if you can believe it - my mother said she would not attend if my father brought his new wife. Now that’s creepy.
My second marriage, we got married in Reno. That’s kind of creepy too, now that I think of it.
My third and LAST husband - we were married in Mayor Autry’s campaign headquarters right after he won (Fresno).
We hope to be sealed in the Temple some day.
I bet you thought Mormons were better than me, huh?
I am an adopted Jew, grafted in. Yahoo!
There you go again — attacking me rather than my arguments. That’s a clear sign that your doctrine is so unstable, so ridiculous and indefensible that you have to attack the person presenting truth.
Again, Joseph Smith, as all Christians know, fabricated the entire Mormon story, telling people that he got it by looking at rocks placed in a hat, and that those rocks magically translated Egyptian gold tablets into English. Examine the foundation of your faith, restornu. For yourself. Don’t turn to other Mormons. Examine it between you and the Creator. You’ll find that Joseph was a liar, and that the pure truth of Scripture has remained true.
Thank God Fred won’t be tainted with Dobson’s stain!
I think conservative Christians can and do make up their own minds on whom to support without someone like Dobson dictating it to them.
Dobson only exists so the MSM can say “look, evangelicals are mindless followers who can’t think for themselves!”
Then you deny the doctrine of the Trinity? Who was speaking when God said, “Let US make man in OUR image,” then? A God who was somehow enjoying fellowship, who was enjoying community, who had no *need* of additional fellowship (e.g., humans or angels), but for His glory created us nonetheless.
If you want to make such a big deal out of the doctrine of the Trinity apparently not being identified until 400 AD, why insist that the doctrines introduced by Joseph Smith much later *are* true?
Yes, you are ashamed of the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. And so you have to *add* something — the fiction that Joseph Smith introduced in the book he conceived.
Again, I ask: Where are those gold plates, and who has recently translated them into English? Tell me that. Where are those plates? Who else has translated them?
You can’t tell me, because it’s all fiction. An invention from a clever and deceptive and twisted mind.
Dobson is not “one of those radio evangelists.” Dobson is ... Dobson.
Again, I ask you — do follow the money. Tell me where it leads.
That was a nice long response. But you didn’t answer my question: Where are the golden plates, and who else has translated them?
I’ll give you a hint: The answer isn’t in the back of your book. Because there’s no credible answer. Wrestle with that question: Where are the ancient documents supporting the Book of Mormon? Where are the plates and who else has translated them? If you don’t have an answer, please consider that the very foundation of the Mormon religion is false.
Then one day, I found out they believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. I thought they thought Joseph Smith was the Savior. I discovered that the Church needed to be restored on the earth, that the authority and keys needed to be put into place. It all made sense and the Holy Ghost tells me it’s True.
If you don’t believe it, that’s OK, but let me practice my faith without hindrance.
It’s not nice to question someone else’s religion.
How dense are you? This is what you wrote in comment #120:
“The day I vote the way Dobson dictates is the day after Earth collides with the Sun.”
You are indicating that Dobson is “dictating” something now, and that the day you observe how he is “dictating” is the day the Earth collides with the Sun.
Give it up. I don’t know why you’re making such a big deal out of this. You used the term “dictates” — I was simply pointing out that you used the term “dictates.” Goodness.
The struggle for truth isn’t always nice. Do you not care about truth? What say you: Are Satan and Jesus brothers? Was Joseph Smith a prophet, who was chosen to introduce a new gospel? Did Joseph Smith “translate” some Egyptian golden plates into English using some rocks placed into a hat?
My religion challenges me to pursue truth, and to promote truth. By your own statement, then, it’s wrong for you to question my religious convictions.
Non-worthy parents, Mormon or non-Mormon, can't enter the Temple. There is no "wedding" in the Temple, there is a very simple, understated, and brief Sealing ceremony. The Sealing rooms don't hold very many people. Some hold a dozen, some about two dozen at the largest. The Sealing is nothing like a large, traditional wedding that you may be thinking of.
Here's a photo from the LDS Church of one of the Sealing Rooms in the Santiago, Chile Temple.
There's nothing "creepy" about it. Was it "creepy" when the ancient Jews constructed their Tabernacle in the wilderness and limited entry therein? Was it "creepy" when the ancient Jews similarly used Solomon's Temple? Jesus Christ was a Jew and worshipped, taught, etc. in the Temple in Jerusalem. Nothing creepy about it. Entry was limited, especially within the inner walls and the Holy of Holies. Again, nothing creepy about it.
Great post!
Of course Mormon doctrine doesn’t say JS is “the Savior of the world.” That’s a Straw Man.
Your problem is that you believe that the Church needed to be “restored” on the earth be the introduction of a set of new writings, writings that JS supposedly translated from some golden Egyptian plates, using some rocks and a hat, that nobody else has had an opportunity to translate.
Tell me: Why is nobody allowed to translate those plates? Why? Because they’re Egyptian, not ancient Hebrew, and because they’d prove to be the downfall of the Mormon faith.
Address my points; please don’t attack me or set up another Straw Man.
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.