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.
” ‘Slavery was a social issue. You want that amendment repealed?’ Not all things are amenable to that solution. Alcoholism is a social issue but the 18th Amendment was not the right answer. Nice red herring though.”
No red herring at all.
A federal ban on slavery was obviously a violation of “federalism,” as are constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, religion, and bearing arms, given that they do not allow those issues to be decided by the states in different ways.
So obviously our forefathers thought some things — not all things — should be universally guaranteed, while others not “enumerated” are left to the states.
I support adding universal guarantees of prenatal Right to Life and of what a marriage is to the Constitution.
If you disagree, please explain how each of the above — slavery, free speech, etc. — is a justifiable violation of “federalism,” but the right to be born in the first place is not. Or the protection and preservation of the lowest, most local unit of self-government on which not only American but all of Western Civ rests: marriage.
“All that shows is that his phone bank people hadn’t been given instructions on what to say...”
In fact, at Focus, some of those folks answering the thousands of calls that come in every day are volunteers, like us.
I can provide one such instance and it's in the past. The 18th Amendment. Moral legislation of the issue of alcohol. 50 years ago no one would have even thought that the definition of marriage would be considered a federal issue. The same with abortion. These were issues for the states as intended.
For that reason for you to ask me for a list of issues that may be of moral concern 50 years from now I can't. But to lay the groundwork for the Amendment process to be used by our descendants is very dangerous. Now to address your three 'concerns'.
Constitutionally guarantee every prenatal child’s right to be born in all 50 states
The problem with this is very slippery. You are allowing the federal government to legislate when life begins. Are you willing to allow them to legislate when life ends? I don't know about you, but I definitely do not want some of the ghouls surrounding 'right to life' cases making a decision that is one for my family and loved ones.
Constitutionally define marriage — because of its indispensable impact on society, even Western Civ — to be only between one man and one woman
Too easy again. You are passing an Amendment to limit sovereign rights of the individual. How long did the last Amendment to do that last again? Note I'm not advocating homosexual unions but it's an issue for the states. You also very clearly change the intent of the Constitution as a whole. From a document used to limit government to a document used to limit government and the citizens of individual decisions. Congratulations, you've changed the whole concept of the Framers' vision to push a moral issue.
* Constitutionally protect the Flag of the U.S. from physicial desecration
Oh goodness. Let's protect a piece of cloth. You do realize the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect political speech don't you? And while you may find burning of a flag disdainful, it is still a political statement against the union it represents.
But given your argument, do you or don’t you support the 19th century amendment banning slavery.
Again the non-sequitur trap of comparison of slavery to protecting marriage (as if there is a comparison). Of course I would have supported the banning of slavery.
The question however to you is would you support the right of the separate and sovereign states to ban slavery (not to mention blacks) in their own territory? Why? Because they made the decision you agree with? Or because they had the right to make that decision? That's the difference between partisan supporters and federalism. Those that advocate federalism do so even if the decision made by another state is not a decision they would have made in their own state.
“Fred’s belief in Federalism lends itself to bigger government is not necessarily better for everyone. There are some pretty smart people in all the states that can make these kind of decisions without Federal oversight.”
Pistol, it appears you simply don’t understand the marriage issue. Voters in over half the states have now approved state Marriage Protection Amendment. Almost all state laws define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
A Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution is the solution to the threat against states’ rights, not the threat.
The threat is this: five members of the U.S. Supreme Court some day, inevitably, rulling that it’s unconstitutional for any state to limit marriage to only one man and one woman, thus overturning all state laws and all state oonstitutional amendments to the contrary in one fell stroke.
The solution and protection against that threat is for the U.S. Constitution to universally define marriage as one man and one woman.
That’ll handle the coming demands that polygamy as well as so-called homosexual “marriage” be legally recognized and incentivized and financially subsidized by the government.
Pistol: “...won’t talk at all about what he believes...Beliefs in what? Type of government we should have?”
Dobson’s talking about Fred’s religion, what Fred’s religious beliefs are, what his “profession of faith” is, if any.
Dobson’s not stupid, Pistol. Like every other rational person, he’s fully aware that Fred is talking about “what he believes” politically. In fact, one of Fred’s stated beliefs — his opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment endorsed by the RNC national platform — is another point Dobson raises against him.
“...and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail - Amazing. Since he has neither met or seen Thompson on the campaign trail, how can he make a judgement like this? It shows disrespect and complete foolishness.”
Another ridiculous statement, Pistol, with no offense intended. I’ve never met Fred either, but I’ve watched C-Span presentations of his full speeches to the American Legion, for example.
I was pretty sympathetic to Fred initially, but was disappointed that he was very surprisingly NOT eloguent or moving in his speeches. Very folksy and warm and likeable in one-on-one interviews and such, but certainly no Ronald Reagan or even close on the stump.
So I’m fully capable, as is Dobson, of making a judgment as to Fred’s speaking abilities, having never met him and never seen him live — which shows neither “disrespect or complete foolishness.”
It shows simply that I have a TV and the Internet, I know how to use both, have ears to hear, and a mind with which to make judgments.
Fred woulda had me til he nosedived on constitutionally protecting marriage. You don’t agree that that one issue oughtta be a sole determinant? Hey, ain’t it great it’s a free country? You get to decide on whatever basis YOU choose.
“I find the whole platform of Dobson and the Arlington Group ethically troubling.”
Protecting one-man, one-woman marriage, something supported by most Americans and already approved at the ballot by over half the states, with a winning vote averaging 67%.
Believing that prenatal children should not be the victims of torture-killings in the womb.
“Ethically troubling?”
Please expound, Radio. This oughtta be good.
“Your post is an insult to Fred Thompson, his supporters
and the host of this forum.”
I’m sure they’ll get over it somehow.
“Note I’m not advocating homosexual unions but it’s an issue for the states.”
And I’d be more than happy to leave it right there, except for the threat that five members of the U.S. Supreme Court, absent a marriage amendment, will likely some day by fiat overturn the laws and constitutions of the states on the issue. That’s a far greater violation of states’ rights than an amendment that will constitutionally guarantee that the existing laws of the states are safe from federal invalidation.
And I gather from your posts, Bill, that you’re more intelligent than to fail to note that the definition of what govt recognizes as a marriage is a far weightier and impactful issue on society than whether somebody drinks alcohol. The two are not comparable.
Slavery and marriage are comparable, in that they are of such weight and importance that a universal Constitutional guarantee is more important than “federalism” or “state rights.”
“You also very clearly change the intent of the Constitution as a whole. From a document used to limit government to a document used to limit government and the citizens of individual decisions.”
True enough. Just as an earlier amendment limited the right of individuals to buy and sell slaves, and the right of states to allow and enable slave-owning.
Not in every case should there be a universal Constitutional guarantee. Not even in most cases. But certainly in some cases.
Slavery. Life. Marriage.
And because I support justifiable exceptions to federalism doesn’t mean that I don’t support federalism overall.
The Constitution says nothing about federal funding of education. Has a guy so “federalist” that he’s willing to allow 50 different definitions of marriage also called for abolishment of the U.S. Dept. of Education?
I’m telling you, guys, whether you like it or not is immaterial: Fred could have wrapped this thing up, unifying social and economic and “strong national defense” conservatives, but he blew it. The Dobson thing is just one small indication.
Maybe he can still win the nomination anyway. But not with my help, and not with the help of a whole lot of other activist-types that he had ready to stand in his camp.
It was never personal, David.
You assume too much.
“Oh goodness. Let’s protect a piece of cloth. You do realize the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect political speech don’t you?”
Yeah, I read that somewhere.
But here’s where I’m an originalist.
Recognizing that some scumbag is capable of burning a flag without ever saying a word, I reject the interpretation of the word “speech” to mean some leftist taking his clothes off in front of kids on a playground to protest the “naked agression” of the War on Terror, or the act of lighting a match to a national symbol which men have sacrificed their very lives to keep standing upright on a battlefield. No speech involved in any such cases, and thus no Constitutional guarantee.
I suppose so, I assumed we were “FRiends” because we share a common goal to elect conservative leaders.. if that is assuming too much... I am guilty as charged..
“I support adding universal guarantees of prenatal Right to Life and of what a marriage is to the Constitution.”
Yes on the first, no on the second.
Why? In the case of abortion and life a life is at stake. Abortionists say it’s not a human yet but the fetus is not going to become a snake or a cat or a mineral - only a human being. This is a very clear-cut scenario: Life, Death. This situation resembles in type the Amendments that have gone well for us: ending slavery, ladies’ suffrage - we expand freedom and expand the definition of who is fully human to include more humans.
In the case of the second, we are encoding a moral value which is not life or death or whether someone is property. You and I agree on the worth of this moral value, but that’s not the point. If in Massachusetts Bob and Joe get ‘married’ the harm is a) to themselves; b) to taxpayers and/or fellow participants in HMOs who will bear the financial costs of the consequences of their buggery; and c) to what we would call the moral fiber of MA.
Now I would argue that the moral condition of a state full of people who would like to recognize ‘gay’ marriage and one in which the state *has* recognized ‘gay’ marriage is little if not zero. So I don’t think locking in a federal position on marriage really improves the soul of the nation, so to speak.
In fact, the case example of Prohibition leads me to conclude that the opposite happens. The effort was moral, well-intentioned, and resulted in drunkenness galore, the rise of organized crime, and along the way a hefty expansion in Federal power in the process of fighting said organized crime.
In my opinion the best way to handle this one is to let the states handle it separately, but guarantee that one state cannot end up ordering around the other 49 on the issue.
In this way some states will attempt experiments; these corruptions will fail on their own (note how where ‘gay’ marriage has been tried the ‘partners’ fall apart very quickly), and further on a political level the issue will be off the table with the ‘gays’ unable to rant about how ‘theocrats’ are keeping them down.
Oh: for reference, gun laws do vary considerably between states. The ones in MI do not resemble those of IL, despite the clear wording of the 2nd Amendment (and those of the Constitutions of each State).
“Realize that the ‘we’ in Genesis is the trinity, which is a mystery.”
The word “trinity” does not appear in Scripture and it is not a mystery after all.
The evangelical definition of the trinity evolved over time between 300 and 400 A.D. that God is “one indivisible substance in three persons.” Latter Day Saints view the godhead separately as Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, who are one in spirit and purpose, but three separate beings, as revealed in the Scriptures.
Since the evangelical definition of the trinity was not complete until nearly 400 years after the death of Christ, then the prophets and apostles identified in the Bible are not Christians in that sense, since the “trinity” and its definition are not found in either the Scriptures or in the writings of early Christian leaders.
Jesus Christ is my Savior, my personal Savior. He is everything to me. Without Him, we are all lost in our sins forever. It is Heavenly Father’s plan to send His only begotten Son to save us. The Holy Ghost witnesses to my heart and soul that this is the Truth.
Now, if you still think I am deceived, then you call my Savior a liar.
You question my critical thinking skills, after asserting that I am an "unqualified moron". Call not another a kettle of black when thine own pot is stained dark as coal.
It is one indicator of a shallow mind and broad stupidity to toss out the old and tired "disruptor" card.
Grow up.
Do try to comprehend metaphors.
Or, a "Rudy" opponent being a Rudy hater. Or....well, I believe you should get the point.
Your assertion that I am a "troll" is unworthy of consideration. It is the slander of a narrow mind.
As faith demands, as understanding of the scripture compels, the NT is the word and spirit of what God wishes to communicate to us.
“In fact, the case example of Prohibition leads me to conclude that the opposite happens. The effort was moral, well-intentioned, and resulted in drunkenness galore, the rise of organized crime, and along the way a hefty expansion in Federal power in the process of fighting said organized crime.”
If a Constitutional amendment to define marriage would have such negative effects, explain why existing state laws defining marriage have not had such effects over the course of all American history to date.
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.