Posted on 01/04/2008 12:24:09 PM PST by Tlaloc
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson said Friday that GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's victory in the Iowa caucuses shows that Christian conservatives still have considerable influence.
Huckabee easily defeated second-place finisher Mitt Romney in Iowa Thursday thanks to a wave of support from evangelical Christians.
"The results of the Iowa caucuses reveal that conservative Christians remain a powerful force in American politics. That had to be a great shock to those on the far left," Dobson said in a written release.
Dobson criticized what he called media elites, saying they had written off religious conservatives.
Huckabee's victory "was evidence of an energized and highly motivated conservative community," Dobson said. "Not bad for a supposed bunch of demoralized, depressed, disillusioned and disengaged Reaganites."
Dobson said he has not endorsed Huckabee and said the former Arkansas governor may not win the GOP nomination.
In the next test, the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, Christian conservatives are expected to be less of a force than they were in Iowa.
Chocolate chip, ginger bread, and we’re working on a recipe for cookies that go well with beer.
“...stalked [you] from thread to thread...”
Ah yes, well, you were spamming the same false information to thread after thread after thread.
With that link and the combination of 166/169 in this thread, I rest my case. LOL
Your point? Do I have to believe everything in the order JimRob has them in order to meet the test?
“One, singular sensation every little step he/she/it makes...”
I used to like Dobson, but never paid attention to his politics. If he likes the Huckster, then he doesn’t understand the connection between limited government and religious freedom.
Now you’re just taunting me!
We’ll let the readers decide, as before.
Your disdain for Dobson and the evangelical right is plain to see. As far as I can see, your viewpoint is not rare in the Thompson camp, and Thompson himself may even share it.
Caveat Utilitor, Caveat emptor, Caveat subscriptor, or Caveat Freeptor, not sure which applies.
Thompson basically wants evangelical votes but he doesn’t really want to give evangelicals a seat at the table. That’s fine, if that’s what he wants, but the results in Iowa show that might be a mistake on his part.
Hunter is an evangelical who isn’t ashamed of the term.
Already have that, it’s called “ribeye”...
Glad to see you resting your case, so you can spread your sunshine elsewhere.
I’m one of those evil Fred supporters ya know...
You haven't demonstrated anything of the sort. I doubt could, because your premise is too far divorced from reality.
Your point? Do I have to believe everything in the order JimRob has them in order to meet the test?
***My point is that it’s a good place to start if you want to proceed from a definition of conservatism. We had a bunch of rudybots a few months back who tried to redefine conservatism on this website and they didn’t like how things turned out. They’re gone, the definition is unchanged. There is no test. If you want some wisdom on how to proceed with any differences between how you see it and how JimRob sees it, you might go to the bugzapper thread and see which post was nominated for “post of the thread”.
***It was a leaked internal email, wasn’t it? More like a mistake than an attack. An attack is more overt.
Call me cynical, but I don't believe that was an "accidental leak".
As long as it is in that order. Don’t forget Rudy is pro Amnesty.
Plain to see? My disdain for Dobson is proudly displayed and completely justified: the arrogance of declaring or dismissing someone's Christianity from afar, without so much as a meeting, makes any such disdain richly earned.
What you call my "disdain for . . . the evangelical right" is just another one of your posts bearing false witness against me.
I thought you had rested your case? Haven’t you left the thread yet? Do you want to generate an opus for this thread? Are you going to call Dobson a Jackass again? That’s the important part, not whether you are a he or she, but there’s no telling you.
I can imagine you would be, since the exchange exposes you rather well.
You are cynical.
Then, once again, we’ll let the readers decide for themselves.
No, He didn't. He is in it for the long haul.
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.