What's up with all the political concerns about James Dobson on this blog???

Does he have more than one vote or something?? Has he been a superdelegate to the electoral college? Has anyone ever demonstrated that more than nine people ever followed him to the voting booth?

Have you ever wondered where the 'bogeyman' gets his power?

The media is done with James Dobson. They have nominated Rick Warren to take his place. I guess that means we will soon have a leader. But of course he has one vote too--and maybe 8 people follow him to the voting booth.

I just weary of these silly storylines. They are marginally more important than Britney Spears leaving the hospital.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 7, 2008 11:47 AM

I am not a fan of Dobson, and I do enjoy Ann Coulter, but do not always agree with her. However, I do understand their frustration. How is it that the Republican party utterly fails to even come close to an actual conservative nominee? There is not a single conservative in the bunch. They are moderates at best. Many of those of us who are conservatives are tired of the GOP forcing a moderate or liberal down out throats, demanding that we hold our noses and vote for candidates we just do not want, yet when we get a candidate we like, ie Fred Thompson, we can't get party leaders to throw us a bone.

At this point, there is really no difference between the two major parties. Dobson and Coulter do not speak for everyone, but they both have certainly tapped the frustrations of the conservative base of the Republican party, at least on this one.

Paul

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | February 7, 2008 12:03 PM

My biggest complaint of the Dobson, Coulter, Hannity crowd is their "My Way Or The Highway" mentality. I take their threats seriously because their main fear is that if a moderate Republican were to win, their influence would be neutered and then they would have to form their own party. They really want McCain to lose in November so that they can affirm their veto power over any future Republican nominee. If they continue their fratricidal attacks, they are essentially saying that there is no room in their party for senators like Snowe, Collins, Dole, Graham, Spector, Warner, Coleman, etc. I believe that everyone has a right to their preference in the voting booth, but after the voters have spoken, it is time to put their differences aside.

Posted by: george | February 7, 2008 12:27 PM

When you have millions of Christian radio listeners, your printed materials are distributed to millions in church each week - then you have quite a pulpit. If you are a political animal, as Jim Dobson is, then that is quite a bully pulpit with which to influence those loyal listeners who respect your judgment as an advocate for families and Christian values, steering them to the politics and candidates that you tell them reflect those values.

It's disingenuous or completely unknowledgable to claim that "maybe 8 people" follow Jim Dobson's lead.

He's termed himself the Republican kingmaker. He meets in person and by teleconferencing with other leading Republican pastors and with powerful political leaders. He has a close relationship with Karl Rove and was able to get him on the phone in the White House at will.

I have no problem with Jim Dobson's right to do these things or his political activism.

However, I think his positions, claimed to be quintessentially Christian, need to be examined closely to make sure that they really do conform to timeless Christian values, and that somewhere along the way they haven't been hijacked by the seculkar political allies he's bedded down with.

My contention, as a long-time Focus on the Family supporter, is that just that occurred, and Jim Dobson is now a prisoner of the secular interests he made common cause with to try to advance our Christian agenda.

Pride being what it is, it's awfully difficult for anyone to admit they are wrong and digging in one's heels and demonizing those who question has become more and more Jim Dobson's modus operandi - even towards his fellow Christians and supporters who've tried to call him to accountability.

For Christians who believe we ought to be engaged with the culture, like Jim Dobson, it's important that we acknowledge his influence while respectfully asking for accountability to the body of Christ, and if necessary raise voices that reflect our own commitment to Christian values.

It would be most helpful for all of us if Jim Dobson would genuinely engage with his brothers and sisters in Christ instead of going it alone and pretending we don't exist, or that we are somehow demonic forces.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 7, 2008 12:47 PM

As a Democrat, if Billary win the nomination, I probably won't vote either. After what they did in S. Carolina and Florida I am hearing a lot of liberals say the same thing.

Another possibility for the future- the Religious Right backs a 3rd candidate, splitting the Republican ticket. I say the Republican Party is, this year, experiencing a sea change. It will be irrevocably changed- either by the Religious Right leaving, or simply by McCain winning. The Elephants are being reformed as we speak, equivalent to the Dixicrats leaving the party in the 60s.

Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | February 7, 2008 2:05 PM

Moreover, he is not a dissembler or a panderer, as all the other candidates save Ron Paul have been.

He still kissed GWB's ring eight years ago.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 7, 2008 2:58 PM

I've always liked McCain precisely because he doesn't follow party line. He shows he has his own convictions and can think for himself rather than be told what to think by the party. He's not under anyone's thumb or control, stands up with conviction for his beliefs, and he has shown an ability to work across the aisle on many occasions. It was those impressions initially drew me to him, and I would have voted for him in 2000. I can't say that for sure this time around (I'm not sure how true those statements are anymore), but I still haven't ruled it out.

Posted by: squeaky | February 7, 2008 3:08 PM

Although I already know the answer to this question, I've just got to ask...why not support Obama since he's a Christian (I've never heard John McCain referred to himself as a Christian)? Or, do you believe that being Christian and a Democrat are mutually exclusive?

Posted by: Nuttshell | February 7, 2008 3:14 PM

I always respected McCain, even though I would never vote for him (save in 2000 when Michigan didn't have a Democratic Primary anyway, and thousands of us liberals crossed over and voted for him in response to Gov. Engler saying he would make Michigan a firewall for Bush...). However, McCain has flip-flopped and pandered big time on whether to extend Bush's tax cuts. If his reasons for opposing them in 2001 and 2003 were correct then, why is he supporting them now? (Rhetorical question of course; we all know why.)

Posted by: I and I | February 7, 2008 3:17 PM

"Because, frankly, pure "conservatism" is and always was overrated and the so-called Reagan coalition died in 1993 with the election of Bill Clinton (though conservative leaders still haven't gotten the message)."

How do you handle the Republican congressional victory of 1996?

" "Less government," fewer taxes, religious/cultural hegemony and war-mongering, the four posts of said coalition, simply could not stand together for very long; GWB has proved that."

No, there are 3 posts
1) economic conservatism
2) social conservatism
3) national defense conservatism

Fred Thompson was the only one who ran this time that fit the bill.

Time to leave the Republican party. They are now no different than the Democrats.

Paul

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | February 7, 2008 3:30 PM

"Moreover, he is not a dissembler or a panderer, as all the other candidates save Ron Paul have been.

He still kissed GWB's ring eight years ago."

Well, i didn't see that video of him treating GWB like the Pope, myself. :-)

However, eight years ago... I thought George Bush was preferable to Al Gore. How events and watching how character is revealed under duress change one's perspective.

Bush's people (without Bush putting a stop to it) disseminated libels on a mass scale that McCain had an illegitimate black child and that his wife was a convict drug addict during southern primaries. I don't think that actually produced a genuine genuflecting, but McCain was not going to leave the Republican Party. And the fact is, McCain and his wife adopted a child of color from overseas.

There's a myth that McCain is a moderate rather than a conservative, but that's not the case if one looks at his voting record. (Well, yes, he's not to the right of Attila the Hun or Bob Jones Sr., if that's what you're looking for.)

And yes, he has said he is a Christian, but he's not proclaiming it as a condition of why he should be elected over anyone else.

As for "flip-flopping" on taxes... there's a time for tax cuts, I agree. When a nation's at war, infrastructure's crumbling and the deficit is ballooning beyond anyone's ability to repay the massive borrowing required to finance all that, it is not a time to lower taxes and go ever deeper into debt.

Whatever level of government we decide to have, it ought to be closer to being pay as you go, as states required and run efficiently without corruption and cronyism. Anything else is fiscally irresponsible.

Where is the accountability and sacrifice for the common good in time of war by our elites? The putative conservatives who ran the Congress with a monopoly of power for 12 years showed no fiscal restraint whatsover with their pork-laden appropriations - and their tax giveaways and subsidies to the elites who financed their election campaigns.

This was not conservatism.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 7, 2008 3:41 PM

The congressional sea change that brought Newt Gingrich's Republicans to power was in 1994, not 1996. It was accomplished through publication of "The Contract With America" in which Republicans promised to accomplish a slate of definite objectives should they be elected and they put those promises into contractual form to show they meant business.

Many of those elected ran on the premise of term limits, which were found to be unconstitutional. Nevertheless, many of the Republican freshman promised to heed the term limits they had given their word on - and the most principled Republicans kept their promise and did not run again after 1998. That should give a good indication of the mendacity of those who broke their promise and continued as incumbents and the eventual compromises that have soured so many of us on them.

In 1994, the stench of unaccountability and corruption of the Democrat-controlled Congress had become such a liability, that as we travelled acroos the country just before the election, you could hardly find an election sign that identified a candidate as Democrat or even used Democratic color schemes. It was a liability.

In many ways, we're in just the same place today, with the country's mood disgusted and clamoring for change, but now it's away from the Republicans who have held power for far too long for their Party's and our good.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 7, 2008 3:52 PM

So Coulter and Dobson's endorsements are now like the Kiss of Death?

Perhaps voters are awakening from the nightmare of the "Religious" Right's hypocrisy.

Posted by: David Hopper | February 7, 2008 4:24 PM

Tim - Very well said! Those are exactly my thoughts.

John Podhoretz (If I'm allowed to mention his name on this blog) had this to say yesterday:

"...[McCain's] opponents are engaging in a terrible mistake as well. McCain likes to make common cause with politicians across the aisle from him. They can’t stand this. They prefer someone who fights Democrats to someone who makes deals with Democrats. Fair enough. But this is a difference of degree, not of essence. McCain is a deal-maker. Perhaps, having engaged with a real enemy who broke his arms and tortured him and sought to destroy him body and mind and soul, he doesn’t see an enemy when he sees a Democrat but rather just another American whose ideas on many things differ from his but with whom he might share some common ground.

"McCain would, there is no question, be a lousy leader of an ideological movement. But the Republican party is not an ideological movement. It is a political vehicle for the American right-of-center. Those who confuse the Republican party with the conservative movement are indulging in a fantasy — that there is purity in politics and that there is something immoral about ideological impurity."

Posted by: Eric | February 7, 2008 4:44 PM

"First, at last count, 70% of Americans want out of Iraq: old, young, black, white, hispanic, male, female, fait-based, secular, etc."

But not 70% favor immediate withdrawal. A majority want to stay until we achieve victory.

"Second, McCain would permanentize the Bush tax cuts. Again, the majority of Americans are opposed to this,"

This simply isn't true. You can argue that this is what they should believe, but few want a tax hike, and failure to make the tax cuts permanent will be very easy to spin as a tax hike.

"Third, McCain would bring back a watered-down version of Reaganomics. And most people know that Reaganomics were a disaster for most people."

Most people don't know what Reaganomics even is. I think you are confusing "most of the people I hang around with" and "most people".

"Fourth, McCain may look like a reasonable, even good, debater next to Romney et al, but he will have a much harder time with Hillary (a truly excellent debater) or even Obama, who is as good or better than McCain."

Substantively, he'll suffer against Hillary, but will be far more personable. That is the same advantage he had against Romney. Against Obama, he has an advantage on substance, and I think he will be able to force him into gaffes unless Obama can learn how to avoid the temptation to improvise.

"Fifth, the Dem "machine" will likely have even more "ammunition" for its anti-McCain campaign than the GOP will have for its anti-Hillary or anti-Obama campaigns."

The points you cite don't seem all that strong. I don't think the flip-flopping charge is going to stick against McCain. First of all, his middling support of Bush is a net positive for a Republican.

The Senate's attempt to make political hay by weighing down the stimulus package with pork was smart, and did potentially set up McCain to be seen as anti-POW.

That is probably the one area they are going to jab, and it will be moderately effective, depending on how successful they are with this little bit of gamesmanship. But I don't see how this outclasses the ammunition against Hillary, in particular.

"And if he chooses Huckabee"

Unlikely.

" the very concept of a quasi-theocracy is of concern to most Americans."

Not really. And people don't see linking the Constitution and Bible as an attempt to institute a theocracy. But I agree that selecting Huck hurts his chances. My guess is he will take Pawlenty, who brings more net positives.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 7, 2008 5:01 PM

Sorry I got the year wrong. Call it depression over the end of the Republican party.

Rick I was certainly qualified to be in the poor class in the mid to late 90's. Clinton's minimum wage hike was a disaster for me as a minimum wage worker. And now, if the Bush tax cuts are not made permanent, and the rich are overtaxed again, I will find myself back in that same economic category. I own a very small house cleaning business, and my business is directly damaged the more the rich are taxed. As best as I can tell, I cannot afford the tax policies of any of the likely nominees from either party. I am likely to have to raise my rates, cut back hours, and depending on who gets in in November, I will probably lay at least one person off. So much for the liberals caring for the poor and middle class.

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | February 7, 2008 5:38 PM

The media is probably exaggerating McCain's problems with conservatives. First, there are and have always been Republicans who are not conservative evangelical Christians. Some are non-evangelical Christians; others are secularists who like the GOP's economic policies. Second, McCain won between a quarter and a third of the conservative vote on Super Tuesday. That's not bad considering it was split three ways and he was viewed as the least conservative of the three.

Dobson's line-in-the-sand and "threat" not to vote says more about Dobson than McCain. It may turn out to say something about conservative evangelicals, as well -- and by that I mean evangelicals who think you have to be a political conservative to be a true Christian. They are notorious for not knowing when to apply the brakes. Conservative evangelicals enjoyed a political surge in the 1910-1925 period, too, until they made such fools of themselves, they simply dropped off a cliff. Then they spent the next generation attempting to restore their credibility. Only in the 1950s did they begin to re-emerge, but it wasn't until the 80s before they started winning national elections. I've suspected for some time that the current batch is nearing its own cliff.

Posted by: ChristianSkeptic | February 7, 2008 5:39 PM

And now, if the Bush tax cuts are not made permanent, and the rich are overtaxed again, I will find myself back in that same economic category. I own a very small house cleaning business, and my business is directly damaged the more the rich are taxed.

That argument is bogus -- the rich are the ones making tax policy in the first place. Besides, they have shelters and other tax-hiding schemes that you and I can't even approach.

The Department of Education was a Carter project. It was created in 1980. Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981.

I thus stand corrected. But he threatened to abolish it, no?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 7, 2008 6:14 PM

I & I,

I forgot about McCain's "conversion". While I can't say it seems calculating on his part, it sure seems a mite coincidental.

Posted by: Nuttshell | February 7, 2008 6:16 PM

Kevin:

Sorry, but you are wrong about the war in Iraq.

As recently as September 2007 (i.e., AFTER the surge), 60% of Americans polled not only felt we should withdraw as quickly as possible, but also believed that it was a mistake to go there in the first place. Another 10% said they felt it was time to bring the troops home.

Even more tellingly, a Zogby poll found that 72% of American TROOPS say the U.S. should exit Iraq now; only 23% said they should stay "as long as needed." As well, only half the troops felt that "the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear."

If you have credible support for your statement to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it.

Peace.

Posted by: Maani | February 7, 2008 6:33 PM

There is not a single conservative in the bunch.

Because, frankly, pure "conservatism" is and always was overrated and the so-called Reagan coalition died in 1993 with the election of Bill Clinton (though conservative leaders still haven't gotten the message). "Less government," fewer taxes, religious/cultural hegemony and war-mongering, the four posts of said coalition, simply could not stand together for very long; GWB has proved that. Rick K

Very strong insight from Rick. Since the blog has again taken up the conservatve-liberal theme I wanted to post one of my heretical previous entries , since I reworked it into an article and none of the self proclaimed conservatives who always seem so eager to defend their favorite word and disparage the vileness of liberalism. Here it is:

OPEN LETTER TO THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES BUT DO NOT TREAT ALL MEN AND WOMEN WITH LOVE AND RESPECT.

My question to you is simple? Who gave you or anybody else exclusive rights to the word conservative? This is a word with a simple root meaning and many, many variations in usage, a word that should and does belong to every speaker of English. The problem is that you seem to want to claim this word for your exclusive use, and to load far more into these 12 letters than they can possibly hold. While I realize that people all over the world are privatizing many things that don’t rightly belong to them, I guess I never realized the un-capitalized words had been privatized. When did this happen? 1984? Somewhere on the bridge to the 21st century ?

You see I am a professional conservator. Conserving well- loved treasures of architectural art and ornament, mostly from Christian Churches, has been an important part of my life’s work. I have worked on stained glass windows from the middle ages. I have worked on the windows of John Lafarge, Henry Holiday and Charles Connick. I have also taught art history and English. Perhaps it is a matter of this training and experience, or perhaps it is my natural inclination; but I sincerely prefer a conservative approach to semantics. I think writers do best when they keep words close to their root meanings, which brings us first to the linguistic and then to the historic roots of the word conservative: ( definitions and etymology are from the Oxford English dictionary)
conservative ( adj.) ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense [aiming to preserve] ): from late Latin conservativus, from conservat- ‘conserved,’ from the verb conservare (see conserve ). Current senses date from the mid 19th century onward.
conservative(noun) a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.
conserve( verb) ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French conserver (verb), conserve (noun), from Latin conservare ‘to preserve,’ from con- ‘together’ + servare ‘to keep.’

So you see it basically means carefully aimed to preserve or keep together, which is what I do with stained glass windows. And in my work I meet many wonderful church people, many who consider their approach to faith to be conservative. What makes them memorable to me is not spite towards those with whom they disagree. It is not that they draw a quasi-religious moral or spiritual dividing line between those who claim to be conservative and those who are called liberal. It is not a single-minded support of the nation’s military aggressions. It is not any form of anger or fear toward those of other religious practice. Most are not the least inclined to justify or hide the sins committed by those in the Christian church. Rather, what I have found in such individuals is a deep belief that the transcendent grace of God embodied in their faith will continue to bless the world with the majesty of an ancient cathedral and the humility of a tiny seed. These individuals, leaders in their communities, both men and women are all careful with the church’s money and careful about the details of contractual agreements. They are without exception, honest, punctual and generous to a fault. I have listened from high in the air, perched on steel scaffold as the music of Bach ascends from the hands of the organist, and smelled the smell of fresh bread where homeless people are being fed in the church dining room. I owe my living to such as these, and have great respect for their faith and example.

The current, strained use of the word conservative started when it became the title of a British political party, but this political usurpation of a perfectly good word was not, in the strict sense, a truly conservative use, because it did not preserve the word's original and rather spare and precise meaning. In my opinion, it's been down hill ever since. I personally oppose over-feeding words, which are dear to me, on a high-fat diet, especially without proper exercise and social interaction. Otherwise they become bloated, isolated from other words, and weighed down with more than any word can reasonably bear. They begin to have severe mood swings. One moment they feel like the masters of the universe, shouting orders to every word around them and the next they seem insecure, desperate for attention, and feel jealous of their lean, trim, clearly-defined neighbors. Every time such a word gets into a sentence it is like a fat man getting into a canoe. Things just get tippy, and before you know it everything is upside down and all the other words are swimming for the solid ground of plain and honest usage, while the ungainly tipster word flounders, kicks, sucks up un-breathable matter in desperation and spurts great streams of wet, empty noise. I hate to see a once useful and upright word floundering in such a morass, which is why, when it comes to words and many other things, I am a conservative.

By the way, while the word conservative does not make it into any Bible translation I could find, the word liberal, mostly in its modest and natural form of an adjective, appears in many English translations of the Bible. The word liberal is complimentary to whomever it is applied.

Acts 10:2 He was religious and God-fearing--and so was every member of his household. He was also liberal in his charities to the people, and continually offered prayer to God. (WEY RSV)

Romans 12:8 or he who exhorts, to his exhorting: he who gives, let him do it with liberality; he who rules, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. (Root in WEB WEY ASV NAS RSV)

2 Corinthians 8:7 Yes, just as you are already very rich in faith, readiness of speech, knowledge, unwearied zeal, and in the love that is in you, implanted by us, see to it that this grace of liberal giving also flourishes in you. (WEY)

2 Corinthians 8:20 For against one thing we are on our guard--I mean against blame being thrown upon us in respect to these large and liberal contributions which are under our charge. (WEY RSV NIV)

2 Corinthians 9:13 seeing that through the proof given by this service, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the Good News of Christ, and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all; (Root in WEB KJV WEY ASV DBY WBS YLT NAS)

1 Timothy 6:18 They must be beneficent, rich in noble deeds, open-handed and liberal; (WEY DBY RSV)

Hebrews 13:16 And do not forget to be kind and liberal; for with sacrifices of that sort God is greatly pleased. (WEY)

Proverbs 11:25 The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (WEB KJV ASV DBY WBS YLT RSV)

Proverbs 19:6 Many will entreat the favour of the liberal man; and every man is a friend to him that giveth gifts. (JPS ASV)

Isaiah 32:5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. (KJV JPS WBS)

Isaiah 32:8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. (KJV JPS WBS)
(for the uninitiated, the initials above refer to various Bible translations)

The root word means free, generous, giving, or noble minded. So while many seem to despise liberalness, God, or whoever wrote these lovely passages from the Bible, actually seems to like it.

So you see Mr. and Ms. Conservative Christian, every time you are generous and giving, and I have little doubt that you often are, you are at that moment being liberal.

Posted by: jonabark | February 7, 2008 8:00 PM

I've nothing substantitive to add...just want to say that it was a pleasure to read the comments to this post - very informative and interesting discussion. This as compared to my experience reading two comment threads last week where people were questioning eachother's salvation and who is a "real christian" and debating theology. I'm so encouraged to see that it is possible to have a reasonable conversation here!

Posted by: Jennifer | February 8, 2008 2:18 AM

Interesting that Dr. Dobson would lean to the degree of supporting Romney(as Morman teaching is generally considered a cult). It's time that conservatives and liberals come together and work toward solving major problems in this country - what would our founding fathers think? True, the abortion issue is a litmus test but also why are conservatives so in a hurry to have the police state making decisions in people's personal affairs?
This is the role of the Church the last time I checked. And with respect to homosexual behavior, when was the last time we placed this behavior on the same level with adultry and fornication? Love One Another
Gary

Posted by: Gary | February 8, 2008 6:34 AM

Just an observation -

Sojo and Co. seem to be overly concerned about what Dobson and all and their endorsement or non-endorsement of various canidates in the Republican party.

Very little is being said about the elite of the Democratic party flipping off the Clintons and endorsing BHO.

Just interesting -

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | February 8, 2008 12:30 PM

Very little is being said about the elite of the Democratic party flipping off the Clintons and endorsing BHO.

This is a Christian site, BTW, not a general political one -- we have more of a spiritual connection to Dobson than to the Clintons or the "Democratic elite."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 8, 2008 1:11 PM

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 8, 2008 1:11 PM

'...Christian site, BTW, not a general political one...'

Yeah right -

There is not an issues that most of the authors on this site would not take Dobson, Kennedy, Falweel etc to the wood shead on and whip the tar out of them. (oh - two are gone, fancy that...)

There is not an issue that Clinton, Kennedy, (teddy), Nancy, Harry and BHO that they would not go to the mat to defend regardless of what might be correct.

just an observation -

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | February 8, 2008 1:53 PM

Has anybody given any thought to whether or not John McCain has the emotional stability to handle the stress of the Oval Office? The man was imprisoned thousands of miles away from home and tortured both physically and psychologically for five years. One would feel better about his candidacy if he had renounced the Vietnam war and had repented his participation in it, but I guess there's very little room for that kind of honesty and morality in presidential politics.
I've read that there are clips on the internet of McCain singing "Bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb Iran," to the tune of "Barbara Ann."Let's see now: America has thousands of nuclear missiles and warheads, Israel has 200-300 of the same, and Iran has none. Iran is surrounded and probably infiltrated by US forces, and hasn't invaded anybody in 2000 years or more. Despite this, our Republican candidate sings about wanting to"Bomb,bomb,bomb" them.
The political climate of this country has gone beyond madness. I have zero faith in our political system. The only upside for me is that by losing my faith in human endeavors, I've committed myself to seeking God. My faith in the Divine grows daily. I have a premonition that our Saviour will be dropping in on us soon before we annihilate ourselves.

A shout out for Andy "Avenging Annie" Pratt for joining us and contributing!

Posted by: el petey | February 8, 2008 3:54 PM

This is a Christian site, BTW, not a general political one -- we have more of a spiritual connection to Dobson than to the Clintons or the "Democratic elite."

This is NOT a "christian" site. This is a political site that disguises it's mad hunger for power as religious evangelism for a secular moralism.

Every time you, and the hordes of others repeat the "God is a politial liberal" you prove my point, that you're not about God, you're about wielding secular power, justified by religion. In short, a cheering squad for a renewed Dark Ages of corrupt religions and politics.

Posted by: mark | February 8, 2008 7:47 PM

"Because we believe an unborn baby is a human being. When you reach that conclusion, it is almost impossible to conclude that it should receive legal protection. "

Obviously, I meant to say "impossible NOT to".

Posted by: kevin s. | February 9, 2008 1:25 AM

OK - and this is also the site that but the male country singer with the large cowboy hat on here that sang the song 'Does God listen to George Bushes B**l S**t'. No one - not Wallis or any of the other authors that have articles on here ever said that was wrong.

Well, about 20 years ago Jerry Falwell displayed some pornography during an "anti-porn" telecasts, and I don't think he apologized for that either.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 9, 2008 1:10 PM

"I use the BHO as a short cut just like at times I will use GWB do HRC. besides my spelling sucks as many on this site can atest to. Blessings -"
Posted by: moderatelad

Yeah, and Modlad can't win either way- If he says "BO" it might imply "body odor." So if he benevolently puts BHO- he is tacitly implying that Obama is a Muslim. My oh my, what is a good conservative to do?

In our neck of the woods, the GWB is the George Washington Bridge and JFK is an airport.

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 10, 2008 2:29 PM

No, Dobson will not fade, but find new tactics to gain political strength and donations.

First of all, you must remember they surely do better if a Democrat is running the country. They complain all day long every day about America but their own people have been running it a very long time. A Republican Congress started in 1994!

Posted by: Steve | February 11, 2008 10:31 AM

Rick,
You throw out accusations like they are true. Prove what you said about Conservatives being the biggest liars in the world with facts and not just what you think. Can't do it can you? I know you work in the most truthfull organization there is(drive by media) but come on. Everything you print and say is just old media propaganda. No wonder newspaper audience is losing readers and talk radio is gaining audience. Must be because people are stupid huh? For you to stick up for the Clintons is an outright shame. How decieved you are my brother. I love reading your posts though. Your arrogance is astounding. How can you claim to be a man of God when you support such evil? You will be held accountable. As the bible clearly states man perishes for lack of knowledge. Alas that is no excuse. I feel for you bro but you are in my prayers that God will take the blinders off your eyes and you will see the truth. How anyone can claim to be a Christian and support liberal policies is beyond my comprehension.

Posted by: Consevative Christian | February 11, 2008 5:50 PM