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.
you pi$$ off the social conservatives to the moderates, you pi$$ off the moderates to get the social conservatives.
bottom line is that it's all called politics. you can take it or leave it. like marriage, it's all about compromise. what's good for the collective isn't always great for the individual in the short term. i didn't mean to take issue with this guys integrity, but i just think he's doing a disservice.
I see you found another Duncan Hunter supporter to pick on.. You have not missed a single oppertunity to trash a Duncan Hunter supporter to try and elevate Fred The candidate which you appear to be supporting by trashing a Duncan Hunter supporter..
Relax my FRiend,
David
The main agenda of the Arlington Group is to oppose abortion, promote judges that do the same, and to oppose homosexual marriage. You oppose thier agenda?
Your post is an insult to Fred Thompson, his supporters
and the host of this forum.
Wow, that reading comprehension problem again. Dobson isn’t supporting another candidate, he IS bashing Fred.
You appear to be quite easily insulted. Best not to speak for others.
If you believe bigger Federal government is better for everyone, you are on the wrong forum.
They you had better read the rest of my posts.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is a legal litmus test.
I don’t, obviously. But I certainly wasn’t insulted. Quite a distinction. Lotta ultra-sensitives around here, apparently.
I believe I share your sentiments here, unfortunately. Initially I thought Fred was the one but with each passing week I'm less enthusiastic about him. He himself seems even less than enthusiastic about his own candidacy than I do.
Duncan Hunter is the ideal Republican candidate. He would make a wonderful President.
I pray for him each day.
Thank you for the link!
You appear to be quite prickly there yourself.
You don’t consider Federalists worth defending?
::: psst :::
I’m not your “FRiend.”
it is worth noting the Federal Marriage Amendment is codifying existing common law of the land. It’s adoption prevents the expansion of federal bureacrats into giving entitlements based on adult sexual recreations or any other creative pairing for entitlement’s sake.
Legally is slams shut a debate that should not be happeing but for the left wing attack on the family unit.
My you take things a little personal.. I thought all conservatives were FRiends in the sense that we both want what is best for our country, even if we disagree on who is BEST to lead us there.
David
“it should be designed to define marriage as between (only) two humans... A male and a female... That’ll save a bit of trouble down the road.”
Sadly, you’re right.
And it should say two adult humans too. Cause the radical secularists are already well on their way to justifying “intergenerational intimacy,” what the rest of us simply call child molesting.
Thank you for your testimony...
“If you go down this path of passing an Amendment for every moral issue, you’re going to have a Constitution with a list of Amendments stretching to the floor.”
Simply false, Bill.
Provide us a list of such proposed amendments now.
Doesn’t exist.
I’m aware of three you might consider similar:
* Constitutionally guarantee every prenatal child’s right to be born in all 50 states
* Constitutionally define marriage — because of its indispensable impact on society, even Western Civ — to be only between one man and one woman
* Constitutionally protect the Flag of the U.S. from physicial desecration
I’m both a strong advocate of the 10th Amendment and a supporter of all three of the above.
And I reject as ridiculous the suggestion that if the above three are enacted, amendments to outlaw birth control or the act of sodomy or spitting on the sidewalk will follow.
But given your argument, do you or don’t you support the 19th century amendment banning slavery. Please explain either way, since it obviously violated “federalism.”
I thank your father for his service to our country. May he rest in peace.
My dad too was a WWII vet. It was a different world then.
He was buried at Riverside National Cemetery--it makes me feel very proud for Dad to be interned in such a place of honor...
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.