You are one sick b@st@rd!
Posted on 09/19/2007 7:14:10 PM PDT by pissant
LOL. I’m telling my age here but I used to look forward to watching that show.
“Fred Thompson is running for Commander In Chief, not Preacher In Chief.”
Problem is there are too many who want the latter.
It’s really not necessary to thrash Dobson folks.
While his statements are a bit theatrical, and the knock on Fred’s “passion” cheap, he’s not completely off base here in that Thompson hasn’t gone all out to please the social right. He won’t completely stand against gay marriage and he didn’t exactly please me with his avoidance of the question about Terri.
I’ve said from the start he wasn’t going to be like G.W.B. in that arena, and it’s one of the few areas I actually still praise the President on. Dobson’s upset because G.W.B. was close to the perfect President for a social conservative (more so than even Reagan) and, really, that’s all he’s interested in. Just as the NRA mainly cares about the 2nd amendment, and Boortz’s crowd cares about the fair tax etc..
Now that doesn’t mean I’m lining up behind him. So far he’s ruled out Romney, Rudy, McCain and Thompson. I don’t know who he has in mind, if anyone. If Huckabee? Forget it Dobson. Pro-amnesty and pro-big government is what got Republicans in a mess. Newt? Newt has too much baggage and lacks good judgement.
The bottomline, for me, is that while I won’t trash Dobson mainly because I feel a lot of people use him to take pot shots at social conservatives having any influence in the GOP.....this IS the same guy who wouldn’t abandon Miers up until a few days before she withdrew. Good guy? Probably so. Good Christian? Don’t know. But he lacks discernment and good judgement where politicians are concerned and for that is not a man I’ll follow the opinion on re: this matter.
Oh, and about blaming the election on Dobson’s group? Please. If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the Republicans. They allowed corrupt politicians within their midst. Not only morally such as Foley but they allowed pork to corrupt their own members to the point it seems every Alaskan politician save Palin is in trouble. Not that Alaska is the only place with these politicians, it just seemed the most obvious example. They broke their word on confirming judges. They went weak on the WOT. They tried shoving amnesty down our throats. They tried to save Chafee’s hide. Dobson didn’t lose that election, the Republicans did. He was a minor figure at best.
Now as to the future, I’ll be more interested in what Colson and Perkins decide to do.
>I, for one, don’t take my marching or thinking orders from a flawed scripture spewer.<
Such boarishness! FYI, we are ALL flawed in one way or the other. Some just choose to flaunt it.
bump :)
I used to snicker, as a kid, at the way the rich young “playboy” made eyes at Sally.
So if i Vote for Fred Im not right with Dobson ?
Oh Well no loss I havent decided yet but when i do i’ll call mr dobson and clue him in ....Sarc
I read an article the other day that said only about 60% of Mormons are allowed in the temples. And the article was written by a Mormon working for Romney’s campaign.
Whats up with that?
Naturally, his supporters want to discredit the various pundits and players who are coming out saying that Fred is not up to it. But that opinion seems clearly to be gaining ground.
Fred has less than a month, IMO, to start looking like a competent and energetic campaign. He will never get to a primary unless he finds his campaign legs pretty quick.
No need to trash him now...I am content to let him have his shot. If we don't see something soon, his supporters will have to look around. It'd certainly be a better outcome to find a concensus candidate than settle it with a prolonged and rugged campaign battle where we all bloody one another.
Lighten up, Francis.
You think Dobson would reject Jesus Christ on the grounds that you mentioned?
Uhhhhh, Dobson is well known because he claims Jesus Christ as his Savior. Otherwise he’d just be another dime a dozen secular psychologist. I just don’t understand why you would make such a mind boggling claim. It makes no sense.
Not someone with a snowball’s chance in hell of ever winning.
“Social conservatives can’t seem to find someone they like. Or can they? “
I’m sure Jim Robinson and the rest of us social conservatives here will find someone we like just fine—thank you.
OMG, homos running around in the streets!! We need a federal amendment...hey wait a minute...
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.--Federalist 45
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.--10th Amendment
Not that I believe Freddy is that much of a federalist but Dobson needs to come with some actual arguments instead of this tired old federalize every moral issue. Of course I hear the Protectionist wing of the Whig, I mean Republican, party is for such nonsense. An issue clearly intended by the Framers to be handled by the separate and sovereign states.
The problem is the use of a litmus test. Thus far it has been used on Rudy Giuliani (see the Giuliani Truth File above as an example)
Now Dr. Dobson and others have applied the litmus test of a national anti-gay marriage amendment to Fred Thompson. The result is, according to their way of thinking, FT should not be the candidate.
It is better to look at a candidate in toto and vote or not vote for him on the basis of his overall gestalt rather than submit the candidate to a single or several litmus test issues.
If nothing else assume you have 10 issues. Then the probability of finding complete concurrence is 1/2x1/2x1/2 carried out to ten. Someone can do the math but you quickly get into a low probability of complete congruence.
In the meantime, I do believe FT has the high, moral ground here and that Dobson has made the usual error people do when they rely on intuitive feelings of disgust about homosexuals, homosexual marriage and so forth. It is sufficient to allow the states to regulate these matters provided a given state’s law does not automatically become a law for all states because of the way the Constitution is presently interpreted.
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.