Agreed. It is simply a matter of more Republicans willing to sacrifice principles for the false hope of some "media savvy" electable candidate.
[...] will result in conservatives being on the endangered list, sooner, rather than later.
No, I don't believe that is true. Conservatism is ingrained in American culture. The forces that are bending the Republican Party to the left will certainly cause losses in elections this year and in years to come, but Conservatism will survive. Whether that is because Republicans reject this silly foray into Globalism or because the Conservatives reform under a new banner remains to be seen.
I don't think Dobson can endorse a candidate as such and it may have something to do with a tax-exempt status.
I have heard that elsewhere, and it may be true- I know that Dobson makes no bones about whom he rejects (Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson so far, I believe) which is what would be expected IMO. One could further expect a rejection of Paul. Huck is probably safe as a minister, though he is unpalatable to me... but other than that Dobson is pointing to a candidate or two by the attrition of the others.
I expect that Evangelicals will wind up in the Huck/ Tanc/ Hunter area with a pretty heavy lean toward Hunter.
What that group is left with is an empty shell and empty shells aren't known for their winning ways nor advancing their causes.
Exactly so, and it is nearly there now... Ever so close to the tipping point. The difference now is that there is less desire in Conservatives to fight for it anymore, at least not with the Republicans. It could be third party time.
I don't think Dobson can endorse a candidate as such and it may have something to do with a tax-exempt status.
I had replied with this:
I have heard that elsewhere, and it may be true- I know that Dobson makes no bones about whom he rejects (Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson so far, I believe) which is what would be expected IMO. One could further expect a rejection of Paul. Huck is probably safe as a minister, though he is unpalatable to me... but other than that Dobson is pointing to a candidate or two by the attrition of the others.
Since then I have received an official missive from Focus on the Family in the form of a reply by email (I had written them) regarding this whole deal. in the course of that reply the following excerpt confirms your statement:
We should point out that Focus on the Family is prohibited by IRS guidelines from endorsing candidates. Focus on the Family Action, a 501(c)(4) organization, is allowed greater latitude in that area, but we’ve generally refrained from so doing.It’s worth mentioning, as well, that if Dr. Dobson were to endorse a presidential candidate, he would do so as a private individual and not in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Focus or Focus Action. To this point, Dr. Dobson has not backed anyone for the 2008 election.
This statement does seem to encapsulate their official position regarding endorsement, and lends credence to my suggestion that they seem to be pointing toward candidates they cannot officially endorse by way of their attrition of other candidates.
As an aside, I do not understand why they run a 501c and refrain from using it to the extent possible but that seems to be their choice. Perhaps it allows them the ability to contribute but they do not wish to "get dirty" as the 501c's of our opposition do so well.