Posted on 09/19/2007 7:14:10 PM PDT by pissant
That's not how these things work. But it would be pretty big news if Bush I, or Gingrich, or Nancy Reagan, or whoever came out against one of the candidates running for the nomination. Same here. And those people that liked Gingrich or Nancy Reagan, or whoever spoke out, would consider their view. I think Dobson has more people listening to him than any of the people I just named, so it's news.
Where’s the visionary leader that will cut the public’s near 9 TRILLION dollar debt? We’re is the visionary that will reduce our 3TRILLION dollar budget and bring spending back to pre-1930’s percent of GDP? Where’s the clarion trumpets sounding about abortion? Which candidate has said they’ll stop the government from reaching into my back pocket, taking out my wallet and removing my and my family’s hard earned money. Where’s the candidate that will take on the teachers unions and call public education what it really is, generally useless.
If these are your major concerns the only candidate that would be 100% on these issues is Ron Paul.
As politicalmom says,
Fred is “lazy like a fox.” “;^)
‘Well there goes 153 votes for Fred.’]
Pretty much the same thought here. Anyone that requires somebody to tell them who to vote for, or who not to vote for, in any capacity, shouldn’t be voting in the first place.
I’d say Dobson’s ego is getting away from him.
Dobson said to get out and vote, that the heads of the committees in Congress under the Dems were too terrible to think about . . .
Things are going to be fluid I think for another couple of months. The ‘values voters’ in Farah’s debate picked Huckabee by a wide margin. Something ain’t right.
I think the “values voters” are generally nanny staters from the opposite side of the spectrum than the socialist/commi/tree hugger nanny statists. In my view both are equally dangerous to the constitution and individual liberty.
I wonder if this announcement is out of frustration with the way the GOP is snubbing the conservative base.
Appears to me the Dobson doesn’t like Federalism. Seems he wants his self-proclaimed christian rights instead of State’s Rights.
I think its more about he wanted a headline before the end of the week than anything else. This guarantees an invite to Stuffinenvelopes show, and Timmy’s at least.
I do detest religious ‘leaders’ that want to play political king maker. Didn’t like it in the 1980’s, don’t like it now. Eventually they always seem to do more harm than good, giving the leftwingers a ton of ‘ammo’ one way or the other.
Just tend to your flock Mr Dobson.
James Dobson is a legend in his own mind.
___________________
7 million American radio listeners. 500 newspapers carry his column. 115 countries reached, with language translation, by his radio program. Rallies held in stadiums. His ministry has its own zip code.
But your Biblical knowledge is not! But your Biblical knowledge is not!
Apparently neither is yours. GOD also gave man free will to love HIM or reject him and the ability to live according to The Spirit of the Law or the letter of the Law. Living according to the letter of the Law will result in one glorifying GOD in HIS rath or realizing one’s inadequacy and crying out for help. Living according to the Spirit of the Law will lead to GOD’s grace being glorified.
No constitutional amendment will stop homosexuality, promiscuity, infidelity, drug use, alcohol abuse, or any other sin. All this accomplishes is restricting freedom, empowering government and a lack of community involvment.
“Appears to me the Dobson doesn’t like Federalism. Seems he wants his self-proclaimed christian rights instead of State’s Rights.”
As I’ve asked you on other threads, Tradition — so far, without an answer — do you think slavery should be left up to the 50 states?
Either way, explain your answer in the context of “federalism.”
The right to be born in the first place and the preservation of the lowest, most local form of self-government on which Western civilization rests — i.e., marriage — should be universally guaranteed, just as freedom from slavery is via an amendment to the Constitution.
And if the Con is amended via the very procedure which the founders placed in the Co in the first place, how does amendming it violate founding principles?
IMO, it's more personal than that.
Dobson and Fred are only 6 years apart and Fred is demonstrating accomplishments few older gents can even fathom.
That pretty much leaves Hunter and Huckabee and both of those longshots have a lot of ground to make up if they are going to get the nomination. Don’t label me a prophet but I’m guessing Dobson is headed for a road-to-Damascus conversion on one of these guys in about eight months.
________________________________
Yah, if he really wanted to shake up the race he’d endorse Hunter or Huckabee now. This sort of sniping at those he doesn’t like isn’t going to do much.
If you missed the announcement...Slavery was eliminated by means of Constitutional Amendment. It is no longer under the domain of State's Rights. There is no Constitutional Amendment eliminating abortion. Until such time it is a matter of State's Rights.
How I feel about either issue is a moot point. The LAW is the LAW.
Dobson is in the tank for Gingrich, so he’s throwing a fit.
I like Dobson OK, but he’s of the nanny-state-from-the-right version of Christianity. He’d ban beer in a second and probably thinks it’s OK to take away Roman Catholic church tax deductions because they answer to a foreign power. Etc.
“If you missed the announcement...Slavery was eliminated by means of Constitutional Amendment. It is no longer under the domain of State’s Rights. There is no Constitutional Amendment eliminating abortion. Until such time it is a matter of State’s Rights.”
Talk about a shallow and circular argument, Tradition. I expected something a bit more...to put it kindly, substantive.
If outlawing slavery via Constitutional amendment rendered it valid in your mind and no longer a violation of “federalism,” then explain why you’d oppose similarly amending the Constitution via the Constitutionally provided process to protect life and marriage?
Would you have opposed the Constitutional amendment to ban slavery BEFORE it was approved by the states, for violating “federalism”? Then suddenly upon its approval by the states, it no longer violated “federalism”?
Please, since you’re obviously an ardent defender of “federalism,” provide us a logical defense of the concept.
Bump
Good post. I think Dobson’s “job” is to hold politicians feet to the fire on the issues and he unleashes deluges of faxes and calls on “obscure” bills that effect families, churches, etc., that others barely notice. I would like to know what he really thinks about Thompson and why though, since he’s popped up in the news attacking him a couple times now.
I have no bone to pick with Dobson, other than his prejudice against Fred.
Fred is redefining possibilities.
He’s proving his detractors wrong on everything they fling at him.
In The Federalist No. 45, James Madison gave his vision of how federalism would work:
The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the states.
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.