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.
I would love such an amendment.
I also want to be a multi-billionaire, fly like superman, and maybe make love to every girl in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue, or at least have them swoon a bit over me.
Sensible post about Thompson needing to show he is up to the campaign pretty quickly. That’s why I’ve been saying to let your neighbors, friends, family, etc., know about Duncan Hunter. If Thompson stumbles who does a conservative vote for? We need to get Duncan Hunter in a position to be a real alternative if Fred Thompson doesn’t make it when the rubber meets the road. Otherwise we are looking at Guilianni.
Personally, I would have no objection to a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion, however Constitutional Amendments are extremely difficult to pass. I think the ERA Amendment proves that to be true. It’s far easier to get states to ban abortion than attempting via Constitutional Amendment.
I don't blame anyone for the motley crew we have in Congress now except the motley crew we had in Congress before '06 (and yes, this Congress is even worse -- but the critters who failed to adhere to Contract with America and did their best to become career congressional politicians need to take a long, hard look at themselves).
That said, would-be kingmaking (as this appears to be)always strikes me as being more about earthly power than anything else. It just seems like a dangerous game. Then again, the most devout person I've ever known refused to even vote -- that seems like a dangerous game, on the other end of the spectrum.
Anyhoo, this doesn't change anything for me -- we'll see if it makes a difference in the race over the long term.
“No constitutional amendment will stop homosexuality.”
Kid, please identify anyone on the planet who has proposed a constitutional amendment to stop homosexual behavior.
On the other hand, over two dozen states — by an average vote in favor of 67% — have already approved constitutional amendments to prohibit their states from legally recognizing as a marriage anything other than the union of one man and one woman. (I co-authored Michigan’s.)
A Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the long term, is likely the only thing that will prevent five members of the U.S. Supreme Court from some day discovering and declaring that homosexual “marriage” is a “right,” thus overturning all state laws and constitutional protections to the contrary.
And a point that I’m stunned even has to made on a blog frequented by folks who have more than a passing interest and knowledge of the American political process.
Anybody who does not recognize that Dr. James Dobson is a revered individual who substantially influences the public policy thinking and likely voting patterns of millions if not tens of millions of Americans is simply delusional.
People who describe themselves as “focused” or “intensely focused” on moral and social issues comprise 51% of all Republicans...see Fabrizio poll numbers posted in post above (up there somewhere).
And if you don’t think millions of them are influenced by Dr. Dobson’s views on everything from parenting to who the next president should (or should not) be, you’re in la-la land.
Whether you like the guy, agree with the guy, respect the guy, or totally dismiss him (as amazingly, many here obviously do) is totally irrelevant to the FACT of his substantial and widespread influence.
Everything I am and have belongs to my Lord God Almighty. His law is sacrosanct to me. Most of our early laws were based on His laws.
>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 (sic).<
The Constitutional Amendment we have been discussing is the one banning same sex marriage and the recognition of same, not stopping sinful behavior. Only the sinner can do that. Because God finds homosexuality an abomination, our Constitution, which is largely based on God’s laws, should, indeed, be amended to ban same sex marriage.
If you have something to lose by that, it is your problem.
Certain freedoms must be restricted by law. That is what laws are for. And I do not see where this empowers government or threatens Community involvement.
Assuming you agree with Madison on the point, please explain how banning slavery falls into the “external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce” category.
That is, assuming you think it’s a good thing that “federalism” was violated by a Constitutional amendment banning slavery.
If you do, please explain why.
If you don’t, please explain why.
Please do so with the understanding that however you justify your position, that’ll be the standard by which in future exchanges, I’ll hold Fred accountable regarding amendments to protect life and marriage.
No, James Dobson is a man of unquestioned integrity. He simply doesn’t believe that Thompson is a social conservative and he is tired of supporting Republicans who take our votes and then stab us in the back. You can blast James Dobson all you want but why should social conservatives support someone who won’t even take a strong stand against Terri Schievo’s murder. It is becoming clear that Thompson is no social conservative and thus we won’t support him.
“I would love such an amendment.”
And Fred opposes such an amendment. At least til next week, when I hope he’ll suddenly “see the light.” Stay tuned.
Dobson was....hmmmm might have been
Frankly, I’d vote for Alan Keyes before I’d vote for Fred.
But in the primary, I’ll stick with Duncan Hunter. Sent him another $100 today. Will anyone please join me? :)
I’ll vote for Keyes if you do!
...I read somewhere here today that he is already taking a week off from it.
Of course you have a link for that...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1899326/posts?page=100#100
Here’s the link.
Let me try to explain where social conservatives are coming from: we don’t want the politicians to do homage to us and our leaders its just that we are tired of being treated like the crazy uncle in the Republican party. Republican’s can’t win without us and we want to be treated with the same sort of respect that they given to the other parts of the Republican Party. More than anything, however, we are issue based voters. We don’t support Thompson because he is not willing to take a stand on the issues that we care about. He opposes any sort of federal ban on abortion, he dodged his chance to condemn Terri’s murder, he refused to come and answer questions about his views from social conservative leaders, he has downplayed his personal faith, and he opposes the marriage Amendment. So - why should we support him?
Don’t worry. When Christ returns, he won’t be “running” for office:’)
yeah, Kings don’t need to run for anything!!
The amendment is not feasible. Not. Gonna. Happen.
It’s like having a fight over who is tougher: Superman or the Incredible Hulk. Well, who cares? They’re both fictional, so it’s Not. Gonna. Happen.
I applaud a candidate who is not going to waste government resources on something this is not feasible.
Thats ridiculous and you know better than that. You disagree with him but he is a very good man of great integrity who has done a lot of good for this country. He is probably the most respected leader in the social conservative movement. So, when you ridicule him you are ridiculing all of the rest of us and insulting us is not a good idea when you need our votes to win.
“Personally, I would have no objection to a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion.”
Great. Glad to know you recognize that a universal guarantee of every prenatal citizen’s right to be born in the first place is more important than the concept of “federalism.”
And I also respect your decision to support Fred anyway, despite the fact that he opposes amendments too protect life and marriage.
None of the candidates is both perfect and viable on every issue each of us cares about.
But since you acknowledge that there are some principles more important that “federalism,” please refrain from defending Fred from criticism about his opposition to the marriage amendment as if you believe otherwise.
As long as any changes are made by constitutional amendment there is no federalism problem. The 10th Amendment simply states that the powers which have not been delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states are reserved respectively to the states or to the people. If a constitutional amendment is ratified that means that the people - in whom the ultimate sovereignty rests - have chosen to delegate that to the federal government. So, again, federalism is irrelevant when you are talking about constitutional amendments.
Dobson doesn’t have a flock, doesn’t have a church, and doesn’t have anything to do with Craig. He runs a ministry that focuses on the family . . . hence “Focus on the Family.” I don’t know why you are so angry at Dobson and harsh towards him. Do you?
Why doesn’t Dobson himself run for POTUS?
He has experience, reputation, and a passionate following.
A recognizable name. A history of integrity. A popular author. Devout family man.
Has anyone tried to draft him?
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.