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.
Dr Dobson lives in Denver Colorado...
“Hillary looks pretty good in that she seems energetic and sharp. I’m worried about the comparison with Thompson.”
Yes.
Thompson always looks bored - or like he needs a nap.
Exactly! Oh, so true! We have a good group to choose from. And frankly, Obama and Edwards don't really seem to have a chance, just distractions while Hil digs in. I would just hate to see the dummies use our own sometimes hard words against our choices, as we wait for their puffed up October surprise.
~ BUMP! ~
You have a basis for the mud you are slinging there? I have not read anything questionable about Dobson’s finances.
The communications director for Hunter said he was misquoted. I think you know it too.
I don’t read him. I’m Roman Catholic, so I generally ignore protestant preachers. I’m sure he’s a good guy, but I barely have time to keep up with Pope Benedict’s agenda.
____________________________
Dobson is not a preacher. He focuses on family issues, trained as a pyschologist I think. Lots of intersection with Catholic groups in home schooling, school policies, prolife, defense of marriage etc.
#508 says the Hunter “people”, not Hunter.
How can you dispute their rejoicing at every negative Fred posting?
I don’t understand. What do you mean “monthly partner”? How does that address my question to you about Dobson’s supposed condemnation/judgment of Thompson?
I don’t read him. I’m Roman Catholic, so I generally ignore protestant preachers. I’m sure he’s a good guy, but I barely have time to keep up with Pope Benedict’s agenda.
____________________________
Dobson is not a preacher. He focuses on family issues, trained as a pyschologist I think. Lots of intersection with Catholic groups in home schooling, school policies, prolife, defense of marriage etc.
Actually I didn’t know that. Where was that posted?
Why does the Thompson campaign keep saying he has a “100%” totally total pro-life record?
That’s what his voting record from the senate reflects and he also gets top grades from the prolife legislative watchdog groups.
Which in itself makes me wonder about Dobson. Of all the GOP hopefuls and possible ones, Newt’s own personal marriage issues reflect the exact opposite of what he espouses...
________________
I really don’t think this is about Newt. I remember Dobson a few months ago saying something negative about Thompson then as well. I think there is some reason he doesn’t like Thompson. Maybe it’s his stated reasons in that e-mail (defense of marriage amendment etc) or maybe its some scuttlebutt that he knows or believes to be true.
>From poor scheduling, to simply not enabling him to get his message out. I am still running into solid conservative folks who say “Duncan who?”<
I don’t know about poor scheduling. Hunter has not missed a debate yet, and has been present at most major events the others have, and at a few they have not.
I would say the campaign must reach more people, more papers, come out with more news releases, although granted these are no doubt largely ignored by the MSM; and see that more Hunter delegates are present at straw polls, and send out funding letters to untapped sources. Rep. Hunter has had more cable TV time lately, however.
It is amazing how many people get their news strictly from paper or the networks, which do not report on anyone but the top tier. But it gives me an opportunity to say, do you know there is a man running who....and they are surprised, delighted and want to hear more!
>I have tried to point people to Hunter’s web site, as I think it does better than fair at giving his views. But again - something has to give. It is an unfortunate truth that presidential elections hinge on money.<
Another great website to give people is http://www.youtube@RasterMasterTV
Again, many people are on dial up and can’t get the videos in a timely fashion.
So it is all the more important for people who get their news on the Internet, have Broadband, Comcast and cable to spread the word to others who don’t.
We can invite people in to view these videos, or to watch the debates in our homes, which I have done. There is a myriad of ways we can get the word out by telephone or email without leaving our chairs.
If Rep. Hunter would buy some network TV time, the billfolds would open wide!
Meanwhile, PLEASE write your most generous check to: Hunter for President, and send it to:
Go Hunter 08
9340 Fuerte Drive, Suite 302
La Mesa, CA 91941
Or donate through: http://www.gohunter08.com
The FEC report is due in the end of the month. Please support Rep. Hunter TODAY.
Thank you. :)
I understand that the e-mail was a private one.
Dobson and Focus have as their highest priority pro-life. He seems to be a good and decent Christian man who has constantly spoken out on moral issues. He’s also very concerned about the hate crimes bills and the Fairness doctrine. He didn’t like McCain-Feingold, as many don’t, because of the way it skews fundraising.
A candidate that doesn’t hold to those points of view, with the most critical one being pro-life, and the second probably Judeo Christian based ethics (I think he’d have no problem with a conservative Jew, for instance), would not be one he would endorse.
I like Fred Thompson a lot, based on some of his position papers but understand the concerns Mr. Dobson expressed privately, presumably to a friend(?).
I have listened to the guy for many years and he considers himself to be someone who provides information and lets folks take it where they may. He is one of many who try to get a conservative take out to the public, despite the efforts of the lamestream media.
That’s ok. I’m Baptist so I don’t listen to Catholic preachers either.
_________________________________
I’m Presbyterian. I read Catholic Popes, watch EWTN, read and watch Baptist preachers and everybody else that strike me as Godly. I’m just a natural moderate : P . . .
Someone with an opinion? It simply does not agree with yours...hence, uncivil discourse by your definition I see.
Bingo, he’s essentially a Nanny-Statist when it comes to what he believes. If everyone in a particular community want to have gay marraige, fine. I won’t live there and as long as the rest of the country isn’t forced to recognize it then they’ll all stay put. Thompson’s view of the issue is more in line with our constitutional republican founding. If today the Fed can say what’s moral for the entire country then the Fed will forever set the moral guidance and I for one don’t trust the tapeworms in DC to make good decisions regarding morality. They’ll end up using it as another excuse to consolidate power and we’ll lose that much more liberty in how we raise our families. Dobson’s dream would hurt the family in the long run rather than strengthen it.
I’ve been there. It’s creepy. Don’t let them fool you.
Here are some questions regarding the LDS Temple that one no-longer-Mormon (me too) had.
1. Why are the days of creation different than those recorded in the Book of Moses and Genesis? The third and fourth days are backwards in the endowment ceremony.
2. In the Mormon scripture Book of Moses 3:15-25 it says that God commanded the man (Adam) not to eat from the tree of good and evil. God didn’t command the woman, because she had not been created yet. So why is the endowment film different than the Mormon scriptural account?
3. How did Peter, James and John get bodies before they were born? Peter shakes Adam’s hand, so we know they weren’t spirits. According to Joseph Smith’s handshake test for discerning evil spirits from good spirits, Peter should have refused to shake Adam’s hand (unless he had been resurrected).
4. Satan wears an apron that he says is a symbol of his power and priesthood. Why then does Adam, Eve and the temple congregation moments later obey Satan when he commands them to put on aprons?
5. How could Jesus be on the right hand of God, in physical form looking like his identical twin, when Jesus had not been born or resurrected yet? Jesus says in the Bible and BoM that he wasn’t perfected until AFTER the atonement.
6. So was Lucifer a snake as it says in the scriptures, or a man like it shows in the temple?
7. Lucifer picks the apple off the tree and gives it to Eve. But Lucifer doesn’t have a body! What’s up with that?
8. Where did Lucifer get his preacher that was preaching to Adam and Eve? Was he for real or just a ghost? If just a ghost, why was he dressed as a protestant minister with the collar for Adam and Eve to see?
9a. The Book of Abraham as well as the modern prophets have taught us that the earth was created around the star Kolob. It orbited God’s solar system until AFTER the fall, when it was hurled through space and placed in this solar system. This scriptural doctrine contradicts the endowment, where we see the creation of the moon and it mentions our sun and the other planets too. (See http://www.i4m.com/think/lists/mormon_science.htm)
9b. If the Kolob doctrine is true, why is this not included in the endowment, which is supposed to be the “Lord’s University”?
9c. Why go through the creation story if it is not true and contradicts Mormon doctrine and the Book of Abraham?
10. If the endowment is actual history, then why was it so radically changed in April 1990? Whole sections were altered and others deleted! If the endowment represented real history, how could it change? Was it not true to the actual events all along? Is the new version “more true to history?” (See: http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temple_changes.htm)
11. In April 1990 the covenants and penalties of the endowment ceremony were changed dramatically. Didn’t Jesus say in the scriptures that a sign of false churches is that they change His covenants?
12. Where do you find a clear description of these “laws’ mentioned in the temple?
1. Law of Obedience
2. Law of Sacrifice
3. Law of Elohim
4. Law of the Lord
5. Law of the Gospel
6. Law of Chastity
7. Law of Consecration
Some of those laws that temple patrons covenant to obey are never mentioned or explained outside the temple. If they are literal laws of God that must be obeyed, why are they not all clearly identified and expounded upon in church discourse?
13. What is the difference between “legally” and “lawfully” as said in the temple endowment covenant?
14. Adam raises his arms in the “true order of prayer”, and who answers his prayer? Satan. Does this mean Satan can answer even prayers given in the “true order” ordained by God? What prayer is safe from not being intercepted by Satan?
15 Did God really send Peter, James and John down to earth and give Adam and Eve the temple clothes to wear? They didn’t have a temple, so when did Adam and Eve wear them?
16. How could Peter, James and John be involved in the whole thing when they hadn’t been born yet, hadn’t been baptized and had not been through the temple? They weren’t wearing garments themselves, so how could they be worthy to participate in the endowment events?
17. Temple workers stand is as proxies for Elohim and Jehovah during the ceremony, which makes it very sacred. But since someone also stands in as a literal proxy for Satan, doesn’t that also make the temple unholy?
18. What is the purpose of learning the “true order of prayer” if it can never be practiced outside of the temple ceremony?
19. Why does God require secret handshakes, names and passwords to pass through the veil and enter his presence? Can’t God look into our hearts and know whether or not we are worthy?
20. Why are temple patrons required to make death oaths, when they are expressly forbidden by God in Mormon scripture? (see: http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temple_oaths.htm)
20. If the endowment is centered on Jesus Christ, why isn’t Christ’s two top commandments included in the endowment covenants - love God and love your neighbor? Why isn’t there mention of Christ’s sermon on the mount or other teachings on charity and compassion?
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.