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.
No Jesus is NOT a “product” of God, He IS God, not a god but the God.
What was your screen name prior to April 23, 2007?
No - Dobson probably is simply in the same position a lot of us social conservatives are. Which is to say, not terribly happy with any of the options. So, it may well turn out that Romney is the most socially conservative of the current front runners. I hope we don’t have to go there but if none of the second tier candides take off - Romney may be our best alternative.
The problem is that Fred opposes a Human Life Amendment to ban abortion at the Federal level. This is one of the reasons that social conservatives are unhappy with Fred.
If that's your stance, no offense, you're not a strong believer in federalism then. Your stance on federalism has limits when it comes to moral issues, something Mr. Madison (and the 10th Amendment) stated were issues for the separate and sovereign states.
A lot of Fred’s popularity in the Bible belt has been based on the assumption by many people that he is socially conservative. However, if he continues to distance himself from social conservatives like he has since he officially entered the race then his political fall may be every bit as dramatic as his rise in the polls was earlier this year.
LOL! No one but a Mittwit would say that.
Romney may be our best alternative.
Nice try, newbie!!
And you find that......where in the Bible?
Bump!
Correct me if I am wrong, Nebuchadnezzar was a Chaldean King? Joseph or at least the one I am thinking of served under a Egyptian Pharaoh.
That kind of belief is blasphemous!
No offense - but if you don’t know anything about Dobson then why are you implying that he has been involved in any wrongdoing. To my knowledge their have never even been any allegations of impropriaty involving Dobson. He is a man of great integrity who is highly respected by most social conservatives.
Now, as to your statement that “[Dobson] needs to bring himself into the 21st century” and that “his issues just don’t matter when you are talking about electing the leader of the free world.” Statements and attitudes like yours are why more and more social conservatives are leaving the Republican party. It seems that a lot of Republicans want our votes but flat out despise us behind our backs. So, let me be clear about this - if you don’t care about our issues and prefer to insult us then don’t be surprised when we don’t vote for you.
He didn't use the word that we now transliterate as Trinity but he continually refers to His abilities to forgive, raise the dead, and perform other supernatural miracles, as being claimed only by God.
It’s all a matter of perspective hoss. William J. Clinton is “highly respected” also. I happen to think he is a leftist jerk.
I also pretty much think that anyone who cannot see that Fred Thompson is the best choice is a retard.
Still not ashamed of myself.
Apt description of Jim Robinson.
He supports FRED and Federalism.
Who are/were you really, newbie?
Well, first he has to break into the double-digits in a national poll.
On the plus side, he definitely seems to have a better work ethic than Fred and is backed by Joe Arpaio, my favorite sheriff and Jim DeMint, one of my favorite senators.
That being said, I think Dobson is off-base to refuse to endorse Fred at this point. He could very well be the nominee.
Overturning Roe would either prohibit all abortions or return it to the states depending upon how Roe was overturned. Roe was based on two main holdings. First, that the right to privacy (which had already been extended to provide a right to contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut) was implicated by laws which prevented women from getting an abortion. Second, that the “fetus” was not a person under the 14th Amendment. If the court simply says that the right to privacy is not implicated by abortion restrictions then the issue would be returned to the states. However, a much more likely outcome would be for the court to say that privacy is implicated but that the unborn child is a person for the purposes of the 14th Amendment. If the unborn child is a person under the 14th Amendment then he or she is automatically entitled to “not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” And congress is specifically given power to enforce this Amendment by legislation.
This was just discussed on MSNBC (Buchanan and Press). They think FT is going to flame out. FWIW, I am just passing it on. Plus I wanted to respond to a post with 800+ replies!
Actually, I prefer my own choice. I prefer a candidate with enough skill, appeal and knowledge, like RR, that he can win without the Christian or Black votes, so he can say, “Look, I owe you nothing. You opposed me, so screw it. Next time be more practical.”
PS: The “Marriage Protection Amendment” isn’t even marginally important. Gays will do what they want, married or not. As a Conservative, my general feeling is that my opinion stops at the front door.
Seduce kids? Shoot ‘em.
Gay rape? Rape is rape.
Wear a dress? Why not look stupid like so many “fashionable” women so?
Demand special “rights” Hell no.
Get married? Why not? Why shouldn’t they be miserable like the rest of us.
BTW, “Gay Marriage” was not an issue launched by gays. It was quietly pushed by the “Matrimonial Bar” when they began to lose too much income to no-fault divorce.
When you follow the money, you follow the crime.
Your post is an absolutely pathetic attack on a good christian man who has dedicated his life to strengthening America’s families. I am sorry he didn’t support your pet candidate but your attack on him is absolutely classless and far more worthy of being posted on DU than FR.
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.