Dr. James Dobson Caught Between a rock and the other Rock

CrossActionNews ^ | 10-11-07 | Rev Michael Bresciani

[r9etb]

If you think Dobson is making a threat, you are wrong.

Oh, pooh. He IS making a threat: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor party candidate.

That's a threat: In effect, he's telling the Republicans that if they don't give him the candidate he wants he'll take action designed to damage their electoral chances.

What he doesn't mention is that the action, if successful, will undoubtedly throw the election to Hillary Clinton.

He’s explaining that he CANNOT support Rudy, that it would be a violation of his compact with God.

He's certainly free to explain that -- except he didn't. We're on this topic of Rudy Giuliani because we've parsed Dobson's statement in the only way that makes sense. If he's really got a compact with God, then he shouldn't be shy about stating it openly, rather than trying to dodge around the point.

[r9etb]

but who heard of Romney outside Massachusetts? I didn’t, and I’m not that far away, and I’m here on FR.

I had heard of him on his own because of his election, and his dad is a big name from way back. So his name is familiar ... though admittedly not as familiar as Giuliani's.

Duncan should have gotten buzz ...

On what basis? He's been in the House since 1981(!!!), and I had never heard of him before he announced -- and I'm pretty well-informed. I suspect that I'm very far from alone on that score. A man who spends 25 years in the House without his name being widely known ... has no grounds for complaint when his name recognition as a presidential candidate is in the single digits.

There is no way that Guiliani can be nearly a front runner when he is so friggen liberal.

Not in a world where rational campaigns can be waged, with real and substantive discussion of the issues... but we're still at the point in the campaign where name recognition matters more than any kind of substance. And with the preposterously front-loaded primary system, name recognition may be all we ever get.

The bottom line is the Liberal media still runs our primaries. Fred will save us this time, thankfully, and hopefully by next time enough of this will have gone online to render their influence much weaker.

I think that both parties -- especially the Democrats -- are beginning to realize just how damaging the primary system has become. It's almost impossible for the D's to field credible candidates. The R's are a little better off, because we can still attract at least a couple of reasonable choices. But by 2012, I think you'll find the parties finding ways to mitigate the effects of the single-issue-driven primary system.

[securityMama]

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE WILL ENSURE A VICTORY FOR HILLARY.

[pawdoggie]

That may keep you out of court, I'm so glad we both agree that I didn't actually write what you're about to tell me I really meant. but your intent is plain enough. “Plain enough” to you, perhaps. I know what I intended, but I'm not John Edwards - the psychic, not the politician- and I don't understand your gripe. "r9etb", the person to whom I was responding, was clearly critical of Dr. Dobson and his cohorts, yet you chose not to respond to him

To "speculate" in such a fashion is nothing short of character assassination without a whiff of proof. Speculation is wondering, it’s not accusing, and wondering, just asking the question, doesn’t require “proof”. For the record, I have no brief against Dobson personally, although I will be righteously angry with my Christian brother if he attempts to put Hillary in the White House. Dobson isn’t the Evangelical's Pope, and he’s not infallible. He was an erstwhile supporter of (and, later an apologist for) Ted Haggard, was he not?

What is bizarre is the idea behind it- That Christian leaders are conspiratorially plotting insurrection to hide their own insignificance Here’s a dictionary definition of “conspiracy”: any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. Here’s a definition of “to plot”: to develop a secret plan for accomplishing an end. And finally, a definition of insurrection: an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance. Did James Dobson not say that he had convened a gathering of evangelical leaders without prior public or press notice to develop a plan of action (i.e. to plot, as in a conspiracy) in the event that “neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life”. And, as it clearly says in the article, Dobson’s group threatened to “bolt” (or stage an “insurrection” against) the GOP.

So when you get down to brass tacks, what did I say that was so unduly "speculative", or "vapid and ill-intended"? That Dobson's group might be just human enough to want to hedge their bets in the event that Hillary is as inevitable as many people (even here at FR) seem to think she is? That evangelicals might want to avoid possible blame for being a "drag" on the GOP, or (alternatively) that they might want to protect their "kingmaker" self-image against future "Main Stream" media and "progressive" Republican attack? That's not a crime, nor even a gross immorality; and my suggesting that possibility is not "character assassination" (character assassination should be made of sterner stuff).

If you've been around conservative websites/forums as long as I have, but if you've been on line anytime at all you'll know that every election in which the Republicans flat-out lose, or even fail to measure up to high expectations, there are inevitably some self-professed "Conservative Christians" who will claim that the loss (whatever it may have been) was due to some real or perceived transgression against evangelical orthodoxy by the GOP.

[Running On Empty]

Could you speak up please?

[xzins]

You need to read the link. In it Dobson’s clearly reported as saying his decision is based on principle. Many other articles have also been written. In them Dobson always refers to his longstanding religious record in support of the sanctity of life. Anyone who’s ever listened to him at all knows that.

It is impossible for you to say otherwise. I know. I’ve listened for years. You cannot tell me the opposite of what I know to be fact and have me take you seriously.

If you disagree with our principles just say so, but don’t act as if pro-life conservatives have just recently come up with these things.

Anyone insisting on Rudy is throwing this election to Hillary. We can do nothing other than follow God.

[xzins]

You need to read the link. In it Dobson’s clearly reported as saying his decision is based on principle. Many other articles have also been written. In them Dobson always refers to his longstanding religious record in support of the sanctity of life. Anyone who’s ever listened to him at all knows that.

It is impossible for you to say otherwise. I know. I’ve listened for years. You cannot tell me the opposite of what I know to be fact and have me take you seriously.

If you disagree with our principles just say so, but don’t act as if pro-life conservatives have just recently come up with these things.

Anyone insisting on Rudy is throwing this election to Hillary. We can do nothing other than follow God.

[roamer_1]

I'm so glad we both agree that I didn't actually write what you're about to tell me I really meant.

Whereupon you proceed to defend each word of my translation of what you meant... LOL ;)

[...]and I don't understand your gripe. "r9etb", the person to whom I was responding, was clearly critical of Dr. Dobson and his cohorts, yet you chose not to respond to him

To be fair, my ire was raised by the tone of the entire thread. Your post probably received some of that pent up heat. I can handle critique I don't agree with provided there is some sort of feasibility. For instance, it is probably acceptable for some to consider the "king maker" remarks contained within this thread, even though I do not subscribe to them in the least. Those who are inclined to believe so have some basis in the fact that Dr. Dobson is certainly powerful, and some powerful people do have "king maker" tendencies.

**r9etb courtesy ping:

Regarding r9etb, While I disagree profoundly with r9etb, other posters were already expressing my opinion to a significant degree, though I certainly reserve the right to express myself to him as well.

For the record, I have no brief against Dobson personally,[...]

And also for the record, I have no particular interest in Dobson or FoF either, with the exception that I am aware of many of his commitments, and have read some of his books and articles. I am less inclined than others here to smear him with mere innuendo, preferring to take him at his word in regard to his intentions unless there is proof to the contrary or if the record suggests otherwise.

although I will be righteously angry with my Christian brother if he attempts to put Hillary in the White House.

You are free to be as angry as you like, but he is not alone, nor can he be accused of the original incitement. There are many, many right here on this very board that have said the very same thing (myself included) for months. He is just echoing those same thoughts. Since his announcement, Catholic analysts have said worse- That it is likely that Catholics will be voting for Hillary if the Republicans offer up a pro-choice candidate. What about non-religious Conservatives who have also included themselves in this grand rebellion for other reasons? Are they to be addressed as rudely as some here are addressing Evangelicals?

So when you get down to brass tacks, what did I say that was so unduly "speculative", or "vapid and ill-intended"?

What is bizarre is the idea behind it- That Christian leaders are conspiratorially plotting insurrection to hide their own insignificance.

You need not give me dictionary definitions. I know all the words. I put them there. But your interpretations and defense thereof lend credence to what I suggested was your intent in the first place, all objections laid aside.

It certainly puts the situation in the worst light possible, full of malfeasance and corruption, and implicates not only Dobson but 50(?) other Church or Christian organizational leaders (dubbed "cohorts" by you) in the same scheme. It is unwieldy to presume a conspiracy of nefarious means across so vast an inter-organizational body, not to mention one with religious differences and intentions. It is untenable as it would almost certainly be outed from within.

Furthermore, they are "conspiring to hide their own insignificance"? Well, you can't have it both ways pawdoggie. Either they are conspiring in their power or they are insignificant and hardly worthy of all the vitriol. So which do you prefer?

It is more probable to use a less machiavellian interpretation: They are doing precisely what they say they are doing, and that they firmly echo the objections of Conservatives of ALL stripes. The game is on my FRiend, and you are on the side without conviction.

[...] (T)here are inevitably some self-professed "Conservative Christians" who will claim that the loss (whatever it may have been) was due to some real or perceived transgression against evangelical orthodoxy by the GOP.

I believe you are whistling past the graveyard on this one. It is not only the Conservative Christians who make the claim, but nearly every pundit and analyst will echo the same sentiment. When they say "the base stayed home" who they refer to is the Conservative wing, made up almost fully by Christians with primary focus on religious, libertarian, and steadfastly patriotic views. These are staunch defenders of the God of our Fathers and the American Way. Republicans abuse them at their peril.

[Running On Empty]

I absolutely do not agree with the premise that “it is likely that Catholics—(according to ‘Catholic analysts’)—will be voting for Hillary if the Republicans offered a pro-choice candidate”.

I live in the Catholic milieu and am assured that this isn’t the case with those—like myself—who have given their best to the pro-life movement for the past 35 years. We also know that even those Catholics who have not given of their time and energy for pro-life causes will still be not be as likely to vote for a pro-choice candidate—nor would they be “likely to vote for Hillary”.

Whoever the so-called “Catholic analysts” are, they are mistaken...something many analysts can be. Catholics may surprise the body politic and the analysts on this one.

[Running On Empty]

will still be not be = will still not be

[roamer_1]

I absolutely do not agree with the premise that “it is likely that Catholics—(according to ‘Catholic analysts’)—will be voting for Hillary if the Republicans offered a pro-choice candidate”.

Political expert examines the Catholic Vote for 2008 (In a Giuliani vs. Clinton race)

Please let me be clear: I do not believe it either. I was referring to the above article (FR Link) and attempting to draw attention to the fact that others (other than Evangelical) are objecting to Giuliani, yet do not seem to draw the same fire. It was not my intent to disparage Catholics in the least.

[Running On Empty]

Thanks

[r9etb]

Regarding r9etb, While I disagree profoundly with r9etb....

As is your right, of course, and thanks for the courtesy ping.

I have to say that I've become quite cynical about Mr. Dobson of late .... his recent dalliance with Newt Gingrich, and his stupid (there's no other word for it) antics with regard to Mr. Thompson were quite an eye-opener for me.

In line with his other recent comments, this whole "3rd Party" line of thought seems extremely ill-considered. Perhaps the Scripture that applies best is this:

For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' (Luke 14:28-30)

I think a lot of folks aren't really stopping to count the cost here. And if they have, they're not admitting it.

And (assuming it's effective, which I don't think it would be) the cost of Dobson's stand will be reminiscent of another "principled stand." As a result of that one, we ended up with 8 years of Bill Clinton. And, moreover, the consequences of that principled stand are still not finished, as we're now forced to contend with Mr. Clinton's execrable wife.

So take the principled stand if you must. But count the cost, too -- because it's likely to be pretty steep.

[BillyBoy]

>> Dobson has as much credibility yapping about religious matters as I do. ***Do you have 5M listeners? No. So you don’t have as much credibility as Dr. Dobson. <<

No, I don't have five million listeners tuning into a RELIGIOUS program. And neither does your boy Dobson. He has five year listeners tuning into "Focus on the Family" to hear him yap about CHILD CARE and FAMILY advice.

So again, Dobson the Religious Fraud has as much credibility to speak on "Christian" issues as I do. He's no more qualified to give his opinion on religion than Britney Spears is an authority on civil war history, whether she has five million people watching her or not.

Let me know when Dobson gets a single thing on this resume to fit his self-appointed role as a religious leader.

[Kevmo]

So, in your view, Dobson does not have 5M listeners and your credibility is higher than him. OK. I’ll keep that in mind when I consider your posts. Thank you.

[BillyBoy]

Here's guy has 5 MIL+ listeners tuning into his show EVERYTIME to hear him yap about SOMETHING:

He obviously has "authority" if he starts making proclamations about religious matters tomorrow, right?

I mean, WHO CARES if he has absolutely NO CREDENTICALS or BACKGROUND to speak about that particular subject? He has five million people listening to him talk about OTHER stuff.

Your kind of mindset (celebrity talking heads are expert authorities) is the reason why Stuart Smalley suddenly thinks he's qualified to serve as U.S. Senator.

Scary. I'll keep that little fact in mind for your future posts.

[Kevmo]

Interesting comparison.

He obviously has “authority” if he starts making proclamations about religious matters tomorrow, right?
***Dobson has been talking about spiritual matters for a whole generation. Your example has been talking about, what, bodily functions?, for a decade. He may be an authority on the jokes that work with respect to bodily functions, but that is as far as his influence extends in the realm of spiritual matters. Duh. Everyone can see that, but you can’t.

I mean, WHO CARES if he has absolutely NO CREDENTICALS or BACKGROUND to speak about that particular subject?
***So, by extension, you’re saying that Dr. Dobson hasn’t got the background nor credentials, so I’ll comment on that. His original show was about raising kids. He has the credentials & background for that. His show and his group had become so popular that his opinion started to become sought on other matters of spirituality and life, including politics. You may not care, but the people who listen to him do. Why don’t you just admit that you dislike him because he’s a christian and you prefer to see christians having the back seat in our society, keeping their mouths shut and their spirituality to themselves and not bothering you guys who like to listen to crude talkshow hosts?

He has five million people listening to him talk about OTHER stuff.
***Asked & answered.

Your kind of mindset (celebrity talking heads are expert authorities) is the reason why Stuart Smalley suddenly thinks he’s qualified to serve as U.S. Senator.
***I admit I don’t know who Stuart Smalley is. Your kind of mindset compares a very crude deejay with 5M listeners to a very respected Medical Doctor with 5M listeners who geninely consider what he has to say about political matters and the character of leadership in our country. You are way off.

Scary. I’ll keep that little fact in mind for your future posts.
***I agree, scary, I’ll keep it in mind how far off you are in your posts. BTW, this is a social conservative forum and you’re tearing down one of the better known socons. Since you don’t agree with the founding principles of Free Republic, what are you doing here on this socon forum ?Pushing a grotesque comparison with a wacko shockjock shows where you’re coming from.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.

[pawdoggie]

As I read the first couple of paragraphs in your last reply I thought to myself, “Gee, this sounds fairly reasonable, old ‘roamer’ must have gotten past whatever bug he had up his kiester; but by the end of your epistle you were back to putting words in my mouth and reading the thoughts in my head. I’m gratified, however, that after considerable beating around the bush, you acknowledged that “everybody does it” (including evangelical Christian conservatives) in regard to that old adage: “victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan”. That was really the only “point” I was trying to make.

[wita]

If you live in a state that will vote in the primary, then vote for your favored candidate. But anything less than promising to support a viable Republican opposition to Hillary is just shooting yourself in the foot.

Worse still, it is like shooting all the rest of us where it really hurts. Every election we go through this BS and some people never learn. Didn't we just have eight years of the worst presidency in the eyes of just about anyone who loves the country? I'm talking about Bill Clinton. It brought people in large numbers to Freerepublic, but it was not a pleasant 8 years full of one disaster after another, and capped off shortly after the change in administrations, by none other than 9-11. I can't wait.