Dr. Dobson takes his ball and goes home

OMG - will wonders never cease? Dr. Dobson is going to quit. I knew this day was coming but it couldn't be to soon for my family. To think there could be another Republican who didn't agree with him at every turn! Guess what? Invent your own RR party.

actually, the thing I'm most surprised about is how badly Dobson plays fast and loose with the truth. Kerry approached McCain about a cross-party ticket and McCain declined, according to published reports of the time, citing his loyalty to the Republican party.

Speaking as an unapologetic theocon, we need a better quality of theocon leadership in this country.

Gadzooks*, Rod! Methinks thou art much belated in thy plaint!

* Or, as my late mother would have said: joj mene boga. ;-)

it was a few weeks ago, not just yesterday....

Some of Dobson's reasons for not backing McCain are lame, but he fails to cite what to me is the senator's biggest liability: his connections to that anti-Christ George Soros.

"The 30-year-old alliance of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign-policy realists is disintegrating, and the newly-constituted Republican coalition will do without social conservatives."

Tru dat. It will be interesting to see if the new coalition thinks they can WIN without them.

quote: "The 30-year-old alliance of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign-policy realists is disintegrating, and the newly-constituted Republican coalition will do without social conservatives."

Here is what I don't get. How is McCain not acceptable to social conservatives? I consider myself first and foremost a social conservative, and I voted for McCain today. The reason I could not vote for Romney is that he has flip-flopped on abortion. Romney's statements on abortion not too long ago are enough to make my skin crawl.
McCain doesn't seem too much different than Bush with respect to social issues. Republicans still face an uphill climb in the fall, but McCain (who is far from perfect) is the most electable pro-life candidate, which is why I voted for him.
I respect Dobson, but he's wrong about McCain and Kerry. Also, equating being a social conservative with supporting an amendment on marriage that clearly isn't going anywhere is just silly. I'm convinced McCain will appoint the right judges, which is about all a president can do to advance the issues social conservatives care about anyway.

rr

Dobson's clock-work tantrums about how the Republican Party never listens to him always put a huge smile on my face. Seriously, it makes me happy to know he's p.o.'ed about something.

Have foreign policy realists been a major part of the Republican coalition at any point since Henry Kissinger left office?

I don't understand the level of vitriol directed at McCain. My husband's business partner hates McCain more than he hates the Clintons, for goodness sake.

According to congressional records, McCain has voted with his party 87.7 percent of the time. That hardly makes him a liberal; probably not even a maverick.

To an extent, I understand the opposition on immigration, if that's your issue. But McCain was carrying water for the Bush administration on that ... and Bush retains an incomprehensibly high favorable rating among conservatives within the Republican Party.

That said, I voted for Huckabee. But I would take McCain over Clinton any day.

Andrea, it's that 12.3% that they find offensive. It could be 4%, and they'd still hate him... IMO, of course. ;-)

I Corinthians 17:3

'Let not the door smite thine hind parts."

It seems like Michael Medved is the only conservative talk radio host who actually likes McCain and is defending him against the combined efforts by everyone else (Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, et al, and I think Dennis Prager now, too) to make him look like he's Rosemary's Baby.

McCain is the new Lieberman, and conservative radio hosts (Medved excepted) are the new Netroots.

New whine same as the old whine.

I saw a picture yesterday, purported to be from a Romney rally in MN, of a woman holding a large hand-lettered sign that read "Tell McCain that Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."

*headdesk*

Franklin Evans said:

it's that 12.3% that they find offensive. It could be 4%, and they'd still hate him.

It really depends on which 12.3% it is. For instance, if it's a 12.3% that includes assaulting free speech and offering amnesty to lawbreakers of laws that I consider just, that makes even the 87.7% that I agree with hard to stomach. It's like taking 87.7 grams of healthy grilled chicken breast marinated in 12.3 grams of strychnine. It's a combination I wouldn't want to eat.

87.7 grams of chicken breast with 12.3 grams of sweet & sour sauce (say, we disagree over tax policy and pork-barrel spending) isn't something I would choose to eat if there was more on the menu, but I would eat it if that was all there was available.

THERE. Now I'm innoculated against being ruined by getting on the good side of an insufferable prig who's outlived what usefulness he ever had.

Culturally, that is.

quote: "Dobson does not like foul language? He has had Ann Coulter on his show at least once to plug her book "Godless.""

Wow, I didn't realize this. She truly is an embarrassment to conservatives IMO. Dobson probably shouldn't have had her on his show. At least Dobson though hasn't come out and said he would campaign and vote for Hillary should McCain win the nomination. Hillary is twenty times more liberal on abortion than McCain is on a bad day.
Perhaps Coulter's statement about campaigning for Hillary was all for show, just another of her antics. But that coupled with her support of Romney makes me really wonder about her commitment to the issue of life. And if she isn't really pro-life, in my book she isn't a conservative. Period.

rr

May all Republicans follow the good Reverend's sage advice and example.

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe there's a concerted effort on the part of conservatives to move McCain further to the right? Just a thought...

Never forget, the conservatives are the good guys, and the other side are the bad guys.

It's nice to see that James Dobson is willing to be honest on this. As is usually the case with this fine man.

Decent people can withstand 1461 days (figuring a leap year) if the unthinkable happens and a Liberal/Progressive or a wishy washy Republican like McCain or Romney gets the White House. America survived Bill Clinton. The fuel that these kinds of people being President would give the conservative movement, may just wipe away Liberal and Progressive immorality once and for all.

I hope Rush's corporation goes public. I'm buying stock. That is if the Democrats (and McCain) don't outlaw him with new legislation.

Good riddance. If a presidential candidate has to share all of Dr. Dobson's views, I don't want 'em anywhere near my Constitution.

I agree with Francis Beckwith that Ann Coulter has become an embarrassment to the conservative movement and am shocked that Dobson would promote her. I do take some consolation, however, that Dobson is proving that the religious right is not a wholly and irrevocably owned subsidiary of the GOP, which leads to ...

Dobson is just being clear about a current phenomena that has been discussed in this forum before: the Republican coalition is breaking down. The 30-year-old alliance of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign-policy realists is disintegrating, and the newly-constituted Republican coalition will do without social conservatives. Joel

The Democrats opened up to moderates in 2006 to score their Congressional gains. They’re now talking about faith and, occasionally at least, sounding genuine about it. John Edwards’ prolonged hissy-fit got him an early excuse to “spend more time with his family.” Now, if only they’d back off the sexual revolution and its corollaries - basically, go back pre-'72 and mend fences with Labor Union, salt-of-the-earth types - we might have something.

Meanwhile, the Republican establishment is talking as if Reaganism is the cure for what ails us in every age, world without end, amen. They want to cut taxes again, as if they hadn’t proven more profligate and pandering than Democrats ever dreamed of being. The frontrunners are hawks in the policeman-of-the-world mode. The stench rises up. Only Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, both doomed this cycle, say anything different.

My crystal ball is really erratic, but it’s telling me we’re seeing a major realignment of both parties. And though I face it with trepidation, I’m far from entirely unhappy about it. The GOP coalition has left this social conservative queasy at the proximity of Country-Clubbers for nearly 30 years.

John McCain probably just got the best endorsement he could hope for. He will win by kicking the religious right to the curb. As far as Dobson goes, good riddance to bad rubbish.

No matter how popular Jim Wallis style evangelicals and crunchy cons advance, old guard evangelical Republicans like Dobson will NEVER change their tune. The issues always have been and always will be the same for them: abortion, homosexuality, and swear words.

I may agree with some of his positions, but my gosh, does he have to whine about it so much?

i say good riddance to mr dobson - he and the rest of the fanatical religious right proponents have done nothing constructive for the republican party

Unlike many emotional knee-jerk posts here, which show the same immaturity that they accuse Dobson of, "Reader John" really contributes some thoughtful content: It truly =is= good to see that "the religious right" (or religious left, for that matter) is independent of and not "owned" by the political parties.

I disagree with Dobson on this call of his, but get the strong impression that those insulting him here in this forum either don't know about his other work or are actually opposed to such constructive and vital contributions. He cannot be so easily dismissed by anyone who knows the larger picture.

Reaganism is indeed being irrationally beatified, as if Ronald Reagan could do no wrong, when he in fact ran afoul of many of the "pure" standards being held out today.

To respond to Gill's question above, I think the vitriol directed at McCain by certain elements of the Right is due to the simple fact that they can't control him. A man who has integrity is very dangerous to ideologues. People like Limbaugh are living long enough to see themselves become increasingly irrelevant, and they are throwing tantrums because they are losing their power.

I'm probably going to be voting for Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination, but I am overjoyed at the way that this election has upended the conventional wisdom and given more power to the moderates from both parties.

All of you should read Blinded By Might by Cal Thomas and Rev. Ed Dobson (no relation to James), both of whom worked for the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in the 1980s. The authors describe their experiences and the fundamental limitations of using political means to enforce moral change. Both take Dobson to task, and neither of them support abortion or same-sex marriage.

And then there is Frank Schaeffers's Crazy For God, which has been discussed here and elsewhere on the blogosphere. Schaeffer asserts (and perhaps not inaccurately) that he and his father helped create the Moral Majority and the Religious Right. He doesn't say much about the major players except to describe them as basically loons and lunatics and demagogues. You, of course, have to decide how fair or jaundiced or warped Frank's own perspective might be.

IBreakCellPhones (may I say, an excellent handle):

I'm aware of the distinctions, but I'm also an eye witness to both parties branding incumbents as traitors for voting their principles even when their constituents agree with them, and showing them the door at the next primary. "He voted against the party! (Do not pay attention to the issues involved.)" is a very familiar refrain, and the question I get around to respectfully asking -- after I vent my contempt -- is: are you voting against him on principle, or because the party bosses are angry that he is not under their control? I can see that you are a person of principle. I would be very hard pressed to find people like you in charge of party orgs, from the grassroots on up.

Thanks, historychick. Unlike you, I am a lifelong Democrat who became so fed up with the Democratic party a few years ago that I registered Republican, though I don't believe I've voted for a single Republican. Since my dad was a Republican, I decided to join the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, not the GOP of the last 30 years.

The thing that has turned me off so much about the Republican Party in the past couple of decades has been that combination of self-righteous triumphalism (George Allen, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove) and partisan nastiness. But people on the Left including the Democratic Left were just as guilty of playing those games, even if they didn't play them as effectively. I got tired of hearing people in the Democratic Party catasrophize about Republican policies. Since I knew a number of Republicans who were very hardworking, dedicated people, I didn't like the oversimplification. That's why I'm glad about the splintering of the Right/the GOP/Conservative Coalition.

Finally a chance to for someone to develop a nuanced, non-ideological foreign/domestic policy.

I ... but get the strong impression that those insulting him here in this forum either don't know about his other work or are actually opposed to such constructive and vital contributions. He cannot be so easily dismissed by anyone who knows the larger picture.

Sturtevante, many of us realize the kind of profoundly beneficial work Dobson has done with Focus On The Family. I'm one of them. That doesn't mean, however, that his behavior in the political world is anything to admire. Frankly, I expect more from people who claim to be fighting for moral values.

I'll say it again: If Dobson doesn't have the testosterone to support a candidate because he's worried about his organization's tax-exempt status, then he should either disincorporate or get out of politics.

Reaganism is indeed being irrationally beatified, as if Ronald Reagan could do no wrong, when he in fact ran afoul of many of the "pure" standards being held out today.

Quite true, Sturtevante. As governor of California, Reagan signed what was, at that time, the most liberal abortion law in the U.S. (before Roe v. Wade, btw). The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby reminded everyone of the following in his column:

"Conservatives bristle at the thought of a Republican president who might raise income and payroll taxes. Or enlarge the federal government instead of shrinking it. Or appoint Supreme Court justices who are anything but strict constructionists. Or grant a blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

Now, I don't believe that a President McCain would do any of those things. But President Reagan did all of them. Reagan also provided arms to the Khomeini theocracy in Iran, presided over skyrocketing budget deficits, and ordered US troops to cut and run in the face of Islamist terror in the Middle East. McCain would be unlikely to commit any of those sins, either.

Does this mean that Reagan was not, in fact, a great conservative? Of course not. Nor does it mean that McCain has not given his critics on the right legitimate reasons to be disconcerted. My point is simply that the immaculate conservative leader for whom so many on the right yearn to vote is a fantasy. Conservatives who say that McCain is no Ronald Reagan are right, but Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan either. Neither is Mike Huckabee. And neither was the real - as opposed to the mythic - Ronald Reagan."

Hi mom4vr61,

"He has hurt my family beyond belief."

Would you be willing to explain? How has he hurt your family?

Enough states have a pre-election registration requirement involving some combination of petition signatures and registration fees that the entire concept of a write-in has been negated. Those of you who, like myself, fbc, Donny and others are disgusted with the party monopoly of elections might consider lobbying for a permanent slot on all election ballots: none of the above.

For one person's take (mine, natch) with some hard numbers to illustrate, I invite you to read and comment on http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/none-of-the-above/