Super Tuesday Liveblog: What Will (or Won't) Dobson Do? (by Ryan Rodrick Beiler)
I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language. ...
But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.
While Dobson maintains that he is endorsing no candidate, Focus and friends have certainly warmed to Romney while criticizing Huckabee. Was Huckabee's social conservatism just not enough to win their support for his economic populism? Reading the list of issues cited above, one wonders if electability had more to do with the Religious Right's support for Romney over Huckabee--since from my understanding neither of them use "foul or obscene language." With results so far seeming to favor McCain over Romney, are there any regrets among these erstwhile kingmakers? At this point, as Dobson threatens a boycott of the presidential vote, one wonders if he wishes he'd been more vocal in his support of Huckabee--who's winning southern states where conservative evangelicals are a strong segment of the electorate.
Add to:
Category: Elections, Faith and Politics, Religious Right
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
If he was so concerned about a potential McCain or Giuliani nomination, why didn't he support a candidate?
And McCain's "Gang of 14" gesture prevented the Republicans from shooting themselves in the foot on the even of two very important Supreme Court nominations. Without McCain's efforts, Ed Prado is sitting on the Supreme Court right now instead of Sam Alito.
I'd tell Dobson from where he ought to remove his head, but I wouldn't want to be accused of using foul language.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 5, 2008 11:27 PM
Kevin has aptly seen where it is in the Republicans' best interest to nominate McCain.
I wonder if there is a law against using a non-profit's resources to rant against the candidates whom you do not like. I haven't researched that one. My guess would be that Dobson couched his criticism in terms that are close enough to the FOF purpose that he will get away with it. It would be kind of neat to see him lose his tax exempt status, though.
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 5, 2008 11:35 PM
JamesMartin,
Focus on the Family set up a site called Focus on the Family action for the express purpose of being able to state their political views. Yes they do taxed for this site. Please do some research before you spout off on such a fine institution. Funny that they even have do this since we have a first ammendment. I guess conservative churches need not apply. I for one agree with Dr. James Dobson.
Posted by: Doug | February 6, 2008 12:01 AM
ThanksDoug for the info .
Whats the deal JamesMartin , I thought you were alawyer , you should kow better. I like listening to Dobson Doug , but I think he was wrong on this one .
I voted for John McCain in our split primary . We vore in an election , then we have caucuses this Saturday to vote their . In sense the GOP gets to vote for their candidate in this state if you are the republicans . The dems decided to just have Caucuses .
Got a kick out of Ryan Beilers surprise that the vote by Evangelicals was so split up . Wow , people on the right think for themselves . LOL
Does anyone know if this is a non profit organization ?
Posted by: Mick | February 6, 2008 12:34 AM
"Please do some research before you spout off on such a fine institution." Doug
"Whats the deal JamesMartin , I thought you were alawyer , you should kow better." Mick
Funny...I qualified my remark with the fact that I had not reasearched the issue. You both jump in with a gratuitous, nasty personal attack. And Mick, that is really ironic that you adopt such an attitude when you're the first to take umbrage at such attacks from from the left. As you would say, Mick, I thought you "should kow [sic] better." NOT.
As for FOF being a "fine institution" I will admit that they package their product well. But if you find seething self-righteousness to elevate them to the level of a "fine institution" that is your prerogative. It is just not a view that I share, Doug. And that happens to be my prerogative.
"Wow , people on the right think for themselves . LOL" Mick
LOL
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 6, 2008 5:37 AM
Why do we care what Dobson does? He's becoming more and more irrelevant as time goes on. Are these posts designed to make fun of him? If so, shame.
His biggest mistake was toying with political advocacy in the first place. He had a fine ministry as a family psychologist. Why he left that behind to "focus" on politics is beyond my understanding.
How sad.
D
Posted by: Don | February 6, 2008 7:51 AM
"He had a fine ministry as a family psychologist." Don
I would agree with that, Don. I used to be an avid Focus on the Family listener and I used to receive their newsletter. I wrote to them and asked to be taken off of their mailing list when right after the 1992 presdential elections, the esteemed Dr. Dobson wrote a letter from Focus on the Family (nota bene, Doug, this was not some front group they had come up with but from the non-profit itself) stating how terrible of a draft dodger Clinton was- and that was BEFORE he even assumed office. Gee, so much for Christian chartiy and reconciliation. From that point, it became apparent that Dobson had a political agenda which I did not share.
As for his becoming irrelevant, I certainly hope so.
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 6, 2008 9:14 AM
So true Don. I remember growing up and my parents learning so much from him about parenting. My first one is on the way and I intend on going back and reading some of his stuff. It's a shame he didn't continue on with what he was good at.
As someone who prefers McCain and really likes Huckabee, I can't help but laugh at all those "Religious Right" leaders and talk show hosts who dumped on Huckabee early on. If they'd gotten behind him instead of Romney I feel like he might have been able to unite diverse groups of Republicans and beaten McCain.
Posted by: Eric | February 6, 2008 9:15 AM
As we have seen from yesterday's primary, candidate endorsements (or non-endorsements) don't mean very much and I think that when People like Dobson air their views, they are exhibiting a somewhat inflated impression of their importance.
Taking Dobson's issues one by one:
1. If in fact a Democrat is elected, he may live to regret his support of a rules change that would limit the minority's right to filibuster.
2. The present president is equally guilty of foul language. Should he be impeached?
3. We should be very reluctant to change the Constitution. Marriage is a state issue, and besides, when the Republicans controlled both the White House and the Congress, I did not see any major initiative by them to alter the Constitution.
4. Tax cuts may be either good or bad, but I don't understand how this becomes a moral issue. What Would Jesus Do?
5. Stem cell research offers potential breakthroughs for many devastating conditions, and the current president has authorized continuation in some limited form. Would Dobson's opposition be as vehement if he were witnessing the gradual deteriorization of a loved one?
Posted by: George | February 6, 2008 9:33 AM
I and I to James Dobson:
We haven't forgotten Justice sunday, in which you said that those who disagree with your opinions about federal judge nominations are waging a war on people of faith. It was a lie and you know it. how can you live with yourself?
I and I to James Dobson: Drop dead!
Posted by: I and I | February 6, 2008 9:48 AM
Dobson not only ignored Huckabee early on, but also Sam Brownback, a Christian conservative with integrity. (Maybe Catholic doesn't count?)Brownback dropped out, Huckabee surged without Dobson's help, and the anti-torture, sensible-immigration and reach-across-the-aisle Republican candidate is winning despite Dobson's howls. Perhaps, finally, Dr. Dobson is becoming irrelevant.
(And it seems we're not hearing much from Rod Parsley these days either. Maybe he's actually focusing on being a minister instead of a Republican public relations figure.)
Posted by: I and I | February 6, 2008 10:22 AM
And it seems we're not hearing much from Rod Parsley these days either.
I and I:
I pass by Parsley's World Harvest church at least twice a week on my way to my own church. The garish sign he planted in front of his building announces that he's currently preaching a series on the "end times." You may be right that he's focusing more on being a preacher (I'm not sure about "minister"), but I hardly think that topic is any more relevant than Dr. Dobson's whine that Ryan quotes above.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 6, 2008 11:35 AM
His biggest mistake was toying with political advocacy in the first place. He had a fine ministry as a family psychologist. Why he left that behind to "focus" on politics is beyond my understanding.
Simple. He makes more money -- WAY more money -- by appealing to "culture wars." This is not to mention the temptation to walk the corridors of power and have everyone bow to him as a result.
And it seems we're not hearing much from Rod Parsley these days either. Maybe he's actually focusing on being a minister instead of a Republican public relations figure.
Considering that Parsley had his head handed to him in November 2006, that's understandable. I distinctly remember a segment on ABC News "Nightline" (please excuse me if you've heard this one from me before) that ran right before the election during which he dismissed a small group of religious "liberals" for political activity, practically bragging about the machine at his disposal -- well, the major candidates he supported lost badly.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 6, 2008 12:15 PM
Rick:
One of the "major candidates" that Parsley supported was Kenneth Blackwell for Ohio Governor. Blackwell one-on-one is apparently a very personable and likable guy. But his support of extreme right-wing measures proved too toxic for even some so-called "conservatives" to support. Even the Republicans in the legislature, early on, were trying to distance themselves from some of Blackwell's more extreme ideas. Parsley simply hitched his wagon to the wrong horse.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 6, 2008 12:22 PM
Don -- That was kind of my point. Dobson apparently will support only those candidates who agree with all his stances, which do seem extreme to those of us who don't subscribe to that ideology. But in the process (as you suggested with Parsley), he ends up only alienating even potential allies. Link that, however, with conservatives' continued support of the war in Iraq and the Jack Abramoff-fueled lobbying scandal and they were all but inviting electoral disaster.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 6, 2008 1:30 PM
I and I, is it really necessary for you to express a desire that Dobson perish? WWJD, eh? And Rick, you can't go inside Dobson's head, you have no idea whether or not he is motivated by greed and ambition. That's mighty close to slander, you know.
I agree that I and I's comments were unnecessary. But I stand by what I believe about Dobson's motivations, based on his own pronouncements and actions over the years. You have to understand the nature of the "culture war," in which Dobson has always been in hip-deep; he has been known to criticize -- publicly -- even other conservatives who just question, never mind challenge, him. Did you notice his campaigns against such innocuous items as SpongeBob Square Pants? Think that was done for no reason?
A good book to read on the subject is "Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?" by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson (to my knowledge, no relation), both of whom belonged to Moral Majority. Jim Wallis interviewed them when the book was published in 1999, and Thomas outlined how the process worked: "If gun control is hot, you send out a letter on gun control. If gay rights is hot, you send out a letter on gay rights. If the education issue isn't particularly hot this month, you skip that."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 6, 2008 1:42 PM
Those aren't reasons at all, Rick. Dobson is not motivated by greed just because he holds to his principles more tightly than a politician could wish. Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson also have an agenda. Wonder if they were trying to cash in on the anti-religious-right craze of the last few years? Using your standards of argument, they sure are.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | February 6, 2008 1:58 PM
"Did you notice his campaigns against such innocuous items as SpongeBob Square Pants? Think that was done for no reason?"
It was done for the same reason Wallis took on Lou Dobbs, though the SpongeBob attacks were much more silly.
I don't think Dobson was ever very important politically. He's really not very good at politics.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 6, 2008 2:00 PM
Those aren't reasons at all, Rick. Dobson is not motivated by greed just because he holds to his principles more tightly than a politician could wish. Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson also have an agenda. Wonder if they were trying to cash in on the anti-religious-right craze of the last few years? Using your standards of argument, they sure are.
If James Dobson ever moderates ideologocially or becomes less strident in his delivery he's toast -- even he knows that -- and that's the point that Thomas and Ed Dobson were trying to make concerning James Dobson's forays into politics. (BTW, they mention in the book how James Dobson took them to task, even though they personally agree with him on virtually every issue.) And no, they weren't trying to cash in on any "anti-religious-right craze"; their book was published in 1999, long before it got started.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 6, 2008 2:36 PM
I don't think Dobson was ever very important politically. He's really not very good at politics.
Posted by: kevin s.
Astute observation Kevin . Dobson's whole strength and actually still , is His Ministry supporting the Family . His politics as Jim Wallis does , never united believers , it divided them .
If you can't support a Ministry that supports the family or one that supports the poor , you must have a strange theology .
But put politics into , and watch the believers divide .
Posted by: Mick | February 6, 2008 2:46 PM
If Dobson has traditionally supported Republican candidates, it seems to me that withholding support because the man your party has selected because his views are not 100% congruent with yours is pretty childish.
Good point -- it does kinda show him to be a hypocrite. That said, however, from what I've heard about his beliefs (I've heard his show only a couple of times), he's very authoritarian anyway. Good for kids, sometimes, but bad for adults.
Oh, and JamesMartin -- that was a personal attack.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 6, 2008 4:58 PM
Dr. Dobson and Tony Perkins antics and tactics worry me as a Christian. They always try to make Republicans look good but bash and despise Democrats whether they are moderate, conservative, or liberal.
Reminds me of the song verse:
Christ is the world's peace
and none other
No one can serve Him
and despise another.
Posted by: Steve | February 6, 2008 5:44 PM
Law. a. defamation by written or printed words
Defamation
1. a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions
2. an abusive attack on a person's character or good name syn JamesMartin
=================================================
I wonder if there is a law against using a non-profit's resources to rant against the candidates whom you do not like. I haven't researched that one. My guess would be that Dobson couched his criticism in terms that are close enough to the FOF purpose that he will get away with it. It would be kind of neat to see him lose his tax exempt status, though.
Posted by: JamesMartin
Whats the deal JamesMartin , I thought you were alawyer , you should kow better. I like listening to Dobson Doug , but I think he was wrong on this one .
Posted by: Mick
Posted by: mickey | February 6, 2008 7:31 PM
Come on folks. Can't we all just get along?
I actually think JamesMartin had a point, and his question was okay. It's violating electioneering laws for a 501(c)3 organization to disseminate information against a candidate. If the c3 organization Focus on the Family did it, they would be breaking the law. However, JamesMartin (and I, for that matter) did not know that there was a (c)4 organization set up for that purpose. All Doug needed to do was point it out and that should be the end of the matter.
Posted by: I and I | February 6, 2008 9:34 PM
Thanks for the support, I and I. Your presence here on the blog is a very positive thing.
Jim
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 6, 2008 9:52 PM
"I actually think JamesMartin had a point, and his question was okay."
No problem with the question , I was responding to the "most likely" and would it be great if he lost his tax status basing his most likely was accurate .
Of course if I said "most likely" Wallis is playing the rules to the maxium
and hoped the Feds would jump on him and start causing him problems to run it , you would politely point out the errors of my thinking .
Before or after I was told to drop dead ?
Anyway , what is the Justice Sunday deal ?
Posted by: Mick | February 6, 2008 10:18 PM
Who would Jesus whip?
Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | February 6, 2008 10:33 PM
"Before or after I was told to drop dead?"
Mick, c'mon, I thought we were friends now! I was defending the question, not necessarily the commentary (which I forgot about when I was typing but anyway was certainly no more over the top than my own).
Justice Sunday was the point where I stopped respecting Dobson completely. Remember the filibusters against nine out of nearly one hundred of Bush's nominees for federal courts? Dobson brought together a group of prominent politically conservative religious leaders for a presentation that made the accusation that those nine justices were being persecuted for their faith. No matter that many of the justices that the Democrats approved of were people of faith, or that many of the Democrats objecting were people of faith themselves. The nine justices had made decisions that were controversial which had nothing to do with faith. Anyway, at that point I realized that Dobson was not only pushing questionable politics and calling them essentials for Christians, but that he was an outright liar. Sorry, there's no other way to explain it.
Posted by: I and I | February 6, 2008 10:54 PM
I and I thanks ,
I am not up on my why people are mad at Dobson .
We are friends my man , when you said drop dead Dobson I certainly considered it was over the top , but big deal . The writers stike is still going , I figured you have to use yourown material .
I don't dialoge with you looking for your faults , or harboring resentment for things you have said . You have broken the Conservative all encompassing no one allowed to say something stupid but me circle of friendship .
Posted by: Mick | February 6, 2008 11:16 PM
"Who would Jesus whip?"
Sounds like the beginning of a CareerBuilder.com ad.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 6, 2008 11:47 PM
"Sounds like the beginning of a CareerBuilder.com ad."
LOL
Posted by: carl copas | February 7, 2008 11:42 AM
"I don't dialoge with you looking for your faults, or harboring resentment for things you have said."
Thanks, Mick, I know that and I hope your model of dialogue can catch on. I may have used strong words in the last post regarding Dobson ("liar"), but that is because he is a very influential public figure and I have to conclude that he abused that influence. However, I have made it a point to not use that tone against the other "real people" who post on this blog-- who are all just trying to make sense out of the senseless and none of whom are gaining power or wealth from from pushing our viewpoints. We should all approach this blog as if we are around a bar table dicussing issues over a beer.
Posted by: I and I | February 7, 2008 11:52 AM
Jesus went after the people who used religion to leverage power and wealth. Note that the Republicans no longer have that monopoly.
Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | February 7, 2008 2:56 PM
Dobson et al make one HUGE error, that crosses the bounds into heresy; elevating their OPINIONS into theological dogma. Dobson has/had good advice based on his psychiatric/pedological practice. He has NO qualifications, experience or abilities, in my view, that should have sway in Congress or anywhere else.
I have a personal beef with Magisterium Religiosa Americana. The religious right in this country virtually worships anything coming from these cracked and empty cisterns. When will they realise that the USA is a religious hothouse; the most prolific growth comes only from weeds?
Unfortunately, I have reached the point where I consciously avoid any opinion piece coming from the USA. Pity, as your country has so much to offer to all of us.
Feargal
Posted by: Feargal | February 7, 2008 4:57 PM
I don't often agree with former congressman from Texas Dick Armey; However, ie was right when he called Dobson "a bully."
Posted by: John C. Bonser | February 7, 2008 5:26 PM
I agree Dobson is becoming largely irrelevant, as are most of the "religious right" leaders of the past. That's probably partly the reason for Dobson's frustration and petulance.
I understand the religious right's wariness of Huckabee, who has been very vocal in supporting on "Christian" grounds some political stances that they regard as "liberal" - they seem to have an additional piece of scripture where Jesus says, "Thou shalt not be liberal" which others are having a hard time finding. I was surprised by their staying away from Brownback, who is more conventional, and not as confrontational. Maybe it is anti-Catholic bias.
If Dobson promotes not voting, how many people who have been politically active are going to join him in that? Probably not, although the Democrats will be hoping (and praying?) that conservative Christians will fall in line behind Dobson.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | February 7, 2008 8:51 PM
Well, the plot thickens. Just heard on NPR this morning that Dobson has decided to endorse Huckabee after all.
Ironic, we often say the Religious Right is focused on two issues: abortion and homosexuality. But McCain's views on those are similar to the Religious Right. So I think they are not two-issue folks at all; they believe God wants lower taxes, war in Iraq, school vouchers, etc.
The good doctor has dug his own grave in terms of relevance. My encouraging him to drop himself in it was probably unnecessary--it doesn't sound like he needs any help.
Posted by: I and I | February 8, 2008 10:14 AM
My goodness, the language I have heard from the current president and vice!! And does SAYING you are a Christian make you a Christian or do your actions make you one?
And don't you think we can think for ourselves and no longer need the James Dobsons to be telling us how to raise our children or make a family? There is an arrogance in that in my opinion. If we profess to be Christians then don't we all read the same Bible? Why is his opinion better or worse than anyone elses?
If he chooses to not vote then that is his right.
Posted by: Lula | February 8, 2008 10:25 AM
Conservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see what's really at stake here.
This election is about more than McCain and his inability to follow conservative principals - and that has been proven true a hundred times.
But how is handing the whole country over to liberals a suitable alternative to McCain?
There is a serious difference between McCain and a pure bread liberal who is bent on destroying ALL conservative values as well as our country with them.
Anti McCain commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have ventured the idea that perhaps we should sit this election out and let the Dems have a term in office, claiming it might pave the way for a future shot at a candidate he and others will like in four years.
Imagine the damage our country will endure if Democrats control all three branches of government for 4 to 8 years.
This would give liberals what they will treat as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Not slightly to the left.
My daughters will come of age in the next 4 to 8 years, and I'd rather have 50% of McCains earn than 0% of a destruction bent liberal's ear.
Cherry picking our candidate is exactly what got us INTO this mess, and if conservatives aren’t careful, they may throw the entire country into a liberal spin that can take a decade(s) to pull back out of.
There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that it WILL be undone. Have conservatives completely forgotten Roe v. Wade and other extremely important issues? We need an allie on every core issue we can get.
Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. Many of us wish we had acted sooner to support Romney or Huck....
But staying home on election day allows liberals a pass to capture all THREE branches of Government. Do you want your kids growing up in that kind of environment?
I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious serious problem here, that we can't afford to fall asleep on.
Give it some thought, friends.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
http://thalunatic.blogspot.com
Posted by: Danny Vice | February 8, 2008 11:01 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?