At about the 3:20 mark of this clip, you can see some questions and answers with Fred Thompson about the threat by some leaders of social conservatives that they'll run a third-party candidate if the GOP doesn't nominate the right person in 2008, and about Jim Dobson's personal attack on Thompson.
Thompson's response: "I'm not going to dance to anybody's tune."
I know that the Dobsonites weren't referring to Thompson when they made the threat, but I love his response. The GOP needs to be more than a collection of interest groups who make demands upon the party and its nominees to pay homage or else.
I want every candidate to be true to their own principles, but I also want all voters to support candidates that reflect their own (the voters) principles. You can call Dobson a special interest group if you want, but recognize that he represents a lot of conservative (and GOP primary) voters.
"You can call Dobson a special interest group if you want, but recognize that he represents a lot of conservative (and GOP primary) voters."
Represents? How? Who elected him?
That's like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton claiming they represent a lot of black (and Democratic Primary) voters. In fact, given his demands on the GOP, I'd say that they're very analagous.
Such "representation" has a lot to do with claiming power, but I suspect it has precious little to do with actually representing anything or anyone.
And I'm glad to see that Fred Thompson recognizes that, and isn't afraid to say to publicly when an idiot like Dobson says that Thomson's not Christian enough.
"represents" as in "speaks what they believe".
I didn't play the video - I don't know what he said about Thompson. But I do know that it is not just Dobson who would have a real problem voting for a pro-choice candidate, even if it means it helps Hillary get elected.
On contentious issues, incremental victories are better than incremental defeats. That's such a basic, fundamental, common-sense notion that I am having a hard time understanding why it's being ignored in this instance.
And I'm not specifically referencing you, RSW, but the spiteful folks like Dobson. But since you're willing to engage in this discussion, so I'm hopeful that maybe you can tell me what they're thinking.
I'm impressed that Fred Thompson (and apparently a number of the GOP folks here) aren't James Dobson fans.
On contentious issues, incremental victories are better than incremental defeats.
It is not quite that clean. If there was a solidly pro-life candidate, that could only get a small part of a pro-life agenda passed, then, yes, you take what you can get. Incremental legislation, in the face of opposition from the other party - no problem.
But, there are 2 factors that change this in the voting booth, picking a particular candidate:
1. The vote is a moral action, and supporting a pro-choice candidate strikes many as just 'wrong'. "The country and the party may put a pro-choice candidate in office, but I won't" is the mindset. This issue is much different than gun control or high taxes - you are asking people to vote for someone who doesn't agree that a life in the womb is still a life that deserves protection. It is a line that many just won't cross - regardless of the political implications. It is like endorsing abortion.
2. The GOP is the pro-life party - there is no other vehicle in American politics to advance that agenda. If the GOP is not putting forth pro-life candidates, who will? There might be some, Dobson included, that believe losing an election is worth getting the party "back in line" with this basic platform plank. This has not been an issue in Presidential elections before. The power of the Supreme Court, and the current list of old liberal judges may change the political thinking, I don't know.
"It is not quite that clean. If there was a solidly pro-life candidate, that could only get a small part of a pro-life agenda passed, then, yes, you take what you can get. Incremental legislation, in the face of opposition from the other party - no problem."
This is what I don't understand. For decades, the RTL movement has recognized that the battle begins and ends in the Federal Judiciary. (That was their analysis, not mine, though I agree with it.) That's why you saw such involvement in judicial confirmation battles, and little focus on trying to pass laws that would be overturned by liberal courts.
Now, when they're so close to achieving victory in the only avenue that has mattered to them for so long, they're willing to throw away substantial progress out of spite, even though the candidates they're threatening have all promised to appoint constructionist judges.
It's just not a strategy that makes sense, and that's why I draw the conclusion that it must be about the power and egos of these self-appointed power brokers like Dobson.
I don't think it is totally out of spite, though I could be way off base. And watching Hillary on the campaign trail may change the strategy of Focus on the Family and the FRC.
It also could be that they don't trust Rudy on judges. Would his be better than Hillary's - oh yeah. But he has waffled a bit, saying he could see how a strict constructionist could still support Roe v Wade.
But don't discount the first point I made - the vote is a personal moral act, and that matters. I voted for JBT, knowing she was vastly superior to Rod, but her pro-choice stance did cause me some pause. Even knowing that the IL Gov really would have very little impact on the issue.
"It also could be that they don't trust Rudy on judges."
And yet they trust Romney on everything?
"But don't discount the first point I made - the vote is a personal moral act, and that matters."
I'm not discounting it. But I don't have a problem with someone exercising their personal right to vote in whatever manner they see fit. I don't care how Dobson votes personally.
I am questioning his strategy of claiming leadership on the issue, as he seems more committed to ensuring his own personal power than in advancing incrementally towards victory on the abortion issue.
Let me also say that Dobson isn't totally "self appointed". He heads up an organization that has a membership list and a political action arm. He has as much power as his membership and $'s give him.
"Let me also say that Dobson isn't totally "self appointed". He heads up an organization that has a membership list and a political action arm. He has as much power as his membership and $'s give him."
Right - he's very analagous to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, as I said above.
Especially since he started making demands of "do as I say or I'm taking my ball and going home."
Do people actually send money to Sharpton and Jackson?
I am questioning his strategy of claiming leadership on the issue..
His power will be evident on election day, if it comes to that. If Focus on the Family urges its members to vote for the Constitution party, and it doesn't even show a blip of increase, then all will know he is toothless. He only has that personal power if he can actually "make it happen". I don't know if he can or not.
'Do people actually send money to Sharpton and Jackson?"
Somebody must. Jackson's got Rainbow/PUSH, and Sharpton's got the National Action Network, and those organizations must raise funds to stay alive.
"His power will be evident on election day, if it comes to that. If Focus on the Family urges its members to vote for the Constitution party, and it doesn't even show a blip of increase, then all will know he is toothless. He only has that personal power if he can actually "make it happen". I don't know if he can or not."
I guess my main point isn't whether or not he's toothless, but whether or not this strategy is going to move the ball forward for Pro-Life issues. I deviated from that discussion by speculating as to why he was advocating such a clear retrograde step.
Personally, I am hoping the primary voters make the issue go away.
OK, after all that discussion I just watched the clip. I still don't know why Dobson attacked Fred, but most of my discussion really focused on the "support the 3rd party" leak anyway.
About the clip - I like Fred, and I like a lot of his positions. And I like his no-nonsense, straight talk, even when talking about Dobson. He is right in his positions are greatly in line with Focus on the Family - it does't really matter that he meet with its leader.
For what its worth this is what Dr. Dobson is saying http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005632.cfm
IP, you can ridicule all you want but there are millions of voters--mostly Republicans--who share Dobson's views on social issues, and many of them would tell you he does speak for them.
For what it's worth, I disagree with your opinion that Dobson is an idiot. Dobson has never referred to anyone as "not Christian enough." I also do not think he's spiteful, and if you actually listened to what he says--rather than what his detractors say about him and/or claim he says--you would be able to speak more intelligently about his positions/statements (I'm giving your credit for being open-minded and reasonable).
I'm not sure about the political wisdom of all the pro-life voters abandoning the Republican Party for an election cycle (could cause more long-term damage to "their" party than intended), but if there ever were an election that a subgroup within the Republican Party felt like it might be worth "throwing away their vote" to make a statement about the importance of their hot-button issue this might be it.
"For what it's worth, I disagree with your opinion that Dobson is an idiot. Dobson has never referred to anyone as "not Christian enough.""
Sorry, Scott. It's right here:
And that's Dobson's clarification of his original attack on Thompson. If Dobson were speaking for me before he said that, he sure wouldn't be doing so afterwards. And I'm not even a Thompson guy at this point, so it's not like he was attacking my favored candidate.
"I'm not sure about the political wisdom of all the pro-life voters abandoning the Republican Party for an election cycle (could cause more long-term damage to "their" party than intended), but if there ever were an election that a subgroup within the Republican Party felt like it might be worth "throwing away their vote" to make a statement about the importance of their hot-button issue this might be it."
Right - I can see them doing it, I just question the efficacy of the strategy.
I think that Dobson's strategy and the strategy of many values voters this cycle is focused on the long-term. We're fed up with choosing the lesser of two evils and believe that we have the numbers to influence the GOP so that it puts forth candidates who are stronger on social issues in the future, even if we cause the GOP to lose an election in the short-term. Right now, I get the feeling of being a frog in slowly heating water, and I want to jump off the bandwagon before the GOP and DP merge completely. Thompson, along with the other 3 top-tier candidates knowingly and willfully snubbed values voters by refusing to attend the Values Voter Debate, even though their call centers were swamped by people urging them to come (iirc Thompson even lied, saying he didn't know the debate was going on), giving us little choice but to think that they don't really care to even KNOW what we want in a candidate, or were afraid that the debate would show their true colors (Huckabee won that debate, btw). Everyone seems to assume that only the 4 candidates featured in the media are electable, but why should we willingly let the mass media decide who our top-tier candidates are for us? There's plenty of discussion on IP regarding their allegiances. Regardless, values voters and their chosen leaders have more foresight than many others in the party at this point. We're being shortchanged, we know it, and we're going to make it known to the rest of the party if things continue as they are. It's a free country, so what's wrong with doing that?
Dobson is reminding everyone that there is a substantial percentage of the population that believes abortion is murder. The debate on abortion gets broken down into sub-topics like sex-education, parental notification, partial-birth abortion. These individual issues are easier to debate, and they take the focus away from the core issue. Politicians need broader support, so they like to parcel out the debate and say I'm for this pro-life issue or I'm against that abortion issue. Dobson's group is trying to get the focus back on the larger issue, which is very difficult for politicians to navigate.
For years now, conservatives have had to overlook the pro-abortion stand of a candidate in order to get their other issues heard. Some are asking - why can't it be the other way? Why can't there be a candidate that is a conservative on all issues including pro-life? So? ...there may be some who are pro-choice and would have to overlook this one issue to get their other issues heard. Why is it expected that pro-life voters are the ones who should always make the concession on such an important issue? Another problem with this issue is that some candidates can be strongly pro-life, but somewhere in their past they made a concession on a vote or two in order to make some progress on the smaller issues, and they are cast by people like Dobson as pro-abortion.
Unfortunately, as much as Dobson wants to make this a black and white issue, it isn't. If Dobson does put up a third-party candidate, it would splinter the conservative base of the GOP. The point Dobson would be making is that conservative pro-life voters matter and should not be marginalized, in that he would have won a small battle. The result would be that we lose the war on the many smaller issues related to the abortion debate, not to mention all of the other issues conservative voters care about.
"We're fed up with choosing the lesser of two evils and believe that we have the numbers to influence the GOP so that it puts forth candidates who are stronger on social issues in the future, even if we cause the GOP to lose an election in the short-term."
No offense, but if there are such "large numbers," why the concern about a pro-choice candidate winning the nomination?
"Thompson, along with the other 3 top-tier candidates knowingly and willfully snubbed values voters by refusing to attend the Values Voter Debate"
Again, this sounds to me like something that a Democratic Party interest group would say about their candidates. When did the GOP become a collection of interest groups demanding to be pandered to?
"Regardless, values voters and their chosen leaders have more foresight than many others in the party at this point."
I disagree. I think this is a disasterous long-term strategy for the pro-life movement. Let me ask the question in slightly different ways:
Do you think that pro-lifers will have more influence or less influence on the GOP and in national politics if they do run a third-party candidate in 2008? I think the answer is clearly less influence.
Have there been any instances in the last century of American politics where a particular issue became more important to a major party by that movement's leaders actively working to defeat said major party? I can't think of any.
"We're being shortchanged, we know it, and we're going to make it known to the rest of the party if things continue as they are. It's a free country, so what's wrong with doing that?"
Nothing at all. I just don't think it's a wise strategy, and as a pro-life voter, I don't think it's healthy for either the GOP or for making progress on the issue.
"Dobson is reminding everyone that there is a substantial percentage of the population that believes abortion is murder. The debate on abortion gets broken down into sub-topics like sex-education, parental notification, partial-birth abortion. These individual issues are easier to debate, and they take the focus away from the core issue. Politicians need broader support, so they like to parcel out the debate and say I'm for this pro-life issue or I'm against that abortion issue. Dobson's group is trying to get the focus back on the larger issue, which is very difficult for politicians to navigate."
Maybe this is a conscious change from the very successful strategy that the pro-life movement has pursued of focusing on the Federal judiciary. But my hunch is that it's more about Dobson's personal power. Reading the statements, I just get the impression that he's worried that he hasn't been paid enough attention.
I also think it's important to seperate my criticism of Dobson (and some others) from my position regarding pro-life voters. I have nothing but respect for the latter, and I agree with them in most ways philosophically. I have very little respect for the former, especially in light of their recent threat about working against the GOP and their treatment of Fred Thompson.
'If Dobson does put up a third-party candidate, it would splinter the conservative base of the GOP. The point Dobson would be making is that conservative pro-life voters matter and should not be marginalized, in that he would have won a small battle. The result would be that we lose the war on the many smaller issues related to the abortion debate, not to mention all of the other issues conservative voters care about."
Exactly. It's a bad strategy. If the leader of my movement were advocating a strategy that seemed like it would do more harm than good, and it seemed like that leader were doing so out of spite or personal animosity, I'd think about finding ways of replacing that leader.
From the 2004 Exit Polls:
Now I understand that a significant minority of voters feels very strongly that the procedure is an act morally equivalent to murder... something that must always be illegal. But even they will split down party lines on other issues. In 2004 it came down to roughly 12% of voters who both wanted it totally banned and voted in that direction.
Doesn't really scream to the party that we should forsake all others to appease them. They are still a significant minority though so the GOP cannot expect to entirely disregard them.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
This is what I like to see: GOP factions are already positioning themselves for who to blame for the Great GOP Slapdown of 2008. (Have you seen the logo for the RNC convention in Minneapolis? It looks less like an elephant than a mosquito squashed on a windshield.)
Anon 10:24am... you inspired me. This post is for you.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Anonymous, just like liberals, conservatives can disagree about key issues and still work together as a party. If all Democrats agreed with the anti-war liberals, the GOP would win in a landslide!
"I know that the Dobsonites weren't referring to Thompson when they made the threat, but I love his response. The GOP needs to be more than a collection of interest groups who make demands upon the party and its nominees to pay homage or else."
IP, this is just another of you're shameful attack's on Thompson.
Dan you mean like the Chamber of Commerce, or any number of lobbists?
Did God actually come down and tell Dobson that he gets to tell me I'm not a follower of Jesus? Cause I have a pretty tight relationship with God and I'm frankly quite surprised that I would miss something like that.
Using the Lord's name to fabricate what Christianity is for your own gain is a serious transgression.
Xian, you must have read a quote from Dr. Dobson that missed I didn't read were he said he wasn’t a Christian and what gain was Dr. Dobson was after for himself?
I'm not saying that Dr. Dobson said that he's not a Christian. I'm saying that he tries to define whether or not others are Christians via non-Biblical nor faith based criteria. He basically is just drawing lines in the sand for his own political benefit within the faith and in the nation as a whole.
Read the quote above. Is he actually saying that if I have a private relationship with God, but I don't publically talk to James Dobson about it, I'm not a real Christian? What if God told me to tell Dobson and these other blasphemers to stick it? Well, then I'm fine, but it still means he's running around messing up the faith.
“Did God actually come down and tell Dobson that he gets to tell me I'm not a follower of Jesus?”--I know I sometimes confuse things but I am pretty sure this says your saying that Dr. Dobson gets to tell you whether you are a follower of Christ. I guess I am not sure what quote you are attributing to Dr, Dobson because the only quote I have seen is of a spokes person and he doesn't even question whether Fred is a Christian. You are right I don't think Dr. Dobson or the spokes person knows who you are so I think you may want be more concerned with your relationship with Christ.
Sorry, you don't seem to be understanding. Look a few posts above. He says that he doesn't think he's a Christian--that's a pretty crappy thing to say without qualifying it. Like, "I think that guy might be a child molester", but sure, it's not straight blasphemy.
But look at the quote that IP cites. He clearly defines a committed Christian narrowly--only as someone who openly expresses their faith. This isn't about me--obviously that doesn't describe me. However, the idea that Dobson gets to say, "If someone doesn't talk WHERE I CAN HEAR IT, I don't think they are a committed Christian" is an abomination.
Having a committed personal relationship with Jesus Christ is what makes one a committed Christian. Not whether you can "rock" Christian and totally flip out and speak in tongues and passive aggressively say, "I'm pray for you!" and stuff.
James Dobson is totally why nobody likes us. I'll pray for him.
Listen carefully to Dobson. Read his words closely. He is not a Christian, he is concealing his evilness under the cloak of goodness. He is not the antiChrist but he works for him.
Dobson's job is to lead the lambs away from God, and he is very good at it. Do not follow Dobson. Jesus will forgive you, but God is already locked in the battle with false leaders, blasphemers, evil-doers. Some look like Osama bin Laden and some look like Dobson. Don't let them convince you to believe them, or to join them.
"Focus on Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger sought to clarify Dobson’s statement, telling Gilgoff that while Dobson didn’t believe Thompson belonged to a non-Christian faith, he "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian – someone who openly talks about his faith."--I assume this is the quote you are talking about? This is not Dr. Dobson being quoted but a spokesman out of context and cut and spliced the full statement has not been made available.
I think what you are saying is different then what the media says he is saying and what Dr. Dobson is saying, there is a difference between being a Christian and a committed Christian. What Dr. Dobson I think is saying is that he does not question that Fred is a Christian, Dr. Dobson has questioned the commitment in time or on Faith Issues as a Christian that Fred has accomplished so Dr. Dobson questions Fred as a presidential candidate to trust him to fight for Pro-Family issues. This is not the Biblical issue or one the abomination your trying to make it.
Anon-You must be fun a parties.
"For what it's worth, I disagree with your opinion that Dobson is an idiot. Dobson has never referred to anyone as "not Christian enough.""
Sorry, Scott. It's right here:
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
For what it's worth, Gordy, I thought you meant that Dobson actually said the words "not Christian enough" in reference to Thompson, but I respect your right to interpret his statement as meaning the equivalent. I do like Fred Thompson best out of the field of declared Republican candidates, but my support for him is not based on him being a Christian, or being "Christian enough," or passing James Dobson's muster. I also don't consider Dobson's statement to be all that outrageous. If someone is unwilling to talk publicly about their faith, I don't think it's unreasonable to question their commitment to that faith.
10-5-2007
-->
Dr. Dobson to Appear on 'Hannity & Colmes' Monday
Dr. James Dobson will be a guest on Hannity & Colmes on the Fox News Channel, Monday at 9 p.m. ET. The program reairs at midnight ET. He will offer his views as a private citizen on the 2008 presidential election.
We invite you to pray on his behalf — and to tune in.
--From the website--
There is a big difference between questioning someone's faith and saying that you get to define what "committment" to Christ looks like. Dobson does this crap all the time. He tells us what a Christian family is supposed to look like and what the splinter is my eye supposedly looks like and how when crazy conservative senators sexual harass kids, they are "just joking" and no one should call them on it.
This is a man who calls "spin" if you even quote some nasty hateful thing he said to his countless followers last week UNEDITED and IN FULL.
So I question Dobson's faith and his committment, but I'm well aware that God and James Dobson should figure that out. Or whomeverJames Dobson serves. What I can tell you is that from my perspective, he's a despicable man, and I wish he would take care of his own issues rather than playing them out on millions of other people.
He bears false witness on a daily basis, and last time I checked, that's a commandment. The stuff that he rides to push his candidates at the polls are not commandments.
Run4cvrlib:
I'll bet I'd have fun with Anon 8:54 at parties, but I don't think he'd enjoy it very much.
As far as the Dobson quotes on what constitutes a True Christian, it's not really all that hard to see where his priorities stand. All you have to do is visit the Focus on the Family website. (See below.) He lays out the best ways to grow as a Christian (I know some Unitarian Christians who would be more than a little offended), and he puts the act of witnessing ABOVE reading the Bible or prayer.
This doesn't surprise me at all. He's a licensed psychologist. He gets the idea that you are more likely to identify yourself as Christian in your heart if you talk to other people about that identity. Nobody wants to feel like a hypocrite, and you learn best what you teach to others. Talking about your beliefs makes you much more likely to hold them strongly, and study them enthusiastically. Or, in Anon 8:54's case, so you can rant incoherently about them and become a source of mockery and torment for the evil atheists in their black helicoptors when you start to preach that nonsense. *waves affectionately*
In any case, I think it's safe to say that preaching what you practice is a part of Dobson's definition of what all Christians should do. Witnessing is very much a part of the Evangelical tradition.
Scott:
<< If someone is unwilling to talk publicly about their faith, I don't think it's unreasonable to question their commitment to that faith. >>
I agree. I don't mind if my candidates are Christian, Mormon, Buddhist, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, etc.... What I emphatically do care about is their broader philosophy and precisely how that faith informs their philosophy. If they make a point of identifying themselves as religious, I do not want them to be reluctant to talk about the specifics of their faith. I want them to have thought out their spiritual identity carefully, and be able to articulate it with ease, and without contradicting themselves. I want them to wear it comfortably and confidently, not with a quiet and nervous approach. My rationale here is that if candidates can't explain why they feel the way they do, and how other people with divergent beliefs fit into their worldview, then they are not the sort of people I want representing me.
***
(From the bit on becoming a new Christian... for anyone who thinks I'm taking this out of context, read this first.
To Help You Grow
To help you grow in this new life, here are some suggestions.
The Bible is God's Word, His message to mankind, and so it is important to know what it says. Begin by looking up and reading the verses listed in this article. Then read about a chapter a day beginning with the book of Mark. Next you could read Philippians, then James and I John. A pastor or Christian friend will be able to help you in your Bible study.
Edit to add:
"when someone says, "I am a Christian; therefore, I have a Christian worldview," it's not necessarily true.
Late in 2003, pollster George Barna attempted to determine how many Americans held a "biblical worldview". He asked people questions taken straight from Scripture, to find out if they really believe what is written there. The results were dismal: Only four percent do. When he looked at the born-again believers in America, the results inched up to an anemic nine percent. How can this be? Instead of adopting the formal framework of a biblical worldview, it seems that "Christians" have accepted a hodgepodge of individual truth claims that come from everywhere."
So, yeah. I think it's pretty clear that Dobson doesn't think you're a real Christian unless you follow his version of Christianity. The Bible's version. The only Real Version.
Kem
I don't vote for Christians. I vote for leaders. I vote for people to do the best job. If they are chest thumping Christians, or if they are buddhists, hindus, agnostics, jews, muslims, mormons, or other non-christians it doesn't matter to me, I vote for leaders.
Agreed. One of the ways that I identify a good leader is by how carefully he has thought out his positions and how convincing/consistent he is when he articulates them. I may not always agree with the conclusions, but I will always respect that process.
Kem
I agree, but certainly it is problematic if you preach what you claim to practice and hold others to that standard but do not practice what you preach. Furthermore, I think it's awfully clear that Dobson's focus is not on Biblical committment but on "to Dobson and friends" committment. That why being a usurer is fine, but being gay isn't. That's certainly not Biblical.
xian,
You know, I actually don't think it's that clear-cut. I've had too many discussions with truly sincere fundamentalists to think that they don't take their positions seriously. If I watch Kirk Cameron, I see a guy who really sincerely believes that if you don't follow his belief system and buy every one of the arguments that pursuaded him, you're going to hell. (As an aside: I'd love to see Tom Cruise and Kirk Cameron in a cage debate. They both stay in until one or the other converts. hehheheh....) I suspect the same is true for Dobson and his gang. He sees our failure as a society to follow the Bible to the letter of the law as tragic, and the financial details of what it takes to promote the One True Road to Everlasting Life as a minor detail on the road to Victory. When I watch Dobson (and I try to keep that sort of activity to a minimum, but sometimes morbid curiosity does set in), I see a guy who genuinely wants to help people, and feels he's doing it in the way that God intends him to work.
Or maybe he just prays for forgiveness and makes the guilt go away.
Who knows?
Kem
Its impossible to follow the letter of the law in the Bible. The bible is a diverse collection of documents by different authors, and occasionaly contradcits itself. I don't want to have to go down the rfoad again of so,e of the bizarre "laws" lke women having to leave the village when they'te menstruating. The most obvious example is its perfectly Ok in the OT to have slaves, and even cheat them.
Anonymous:
Yes, but we're not discussing whether or not following the Bible to the letter of the law is a good moral decision. Let's just assume for the sake of discussion here that it is. What we're questioning is whether or not Dobson feels that Christians who don't strive to follow the Bible without tainting their interpretation of God's Word with any "outside influences" are "Christian Enough". I think, based on his website, that he's pretty clearly stating that the only True Christian is one who believes as he does.
Kem
I think we are splitting hairs here. I don't disagree with you. But I think everything I said is consistent with what you are saying. Dobson is not maliciously and intentionally deceitful, he is merely pathological.
He is devoted, but it is no more impressive that he is devoted to his pathological fabrications of Christianity than it is for someone to be devoted to their PBJ sandwich. In fact, it's worse because he's misleading others whereas his PBJ cult would probably be "cult" in the other meaning.
Anon: I see your point. But I do think it is possible to read the Bible with wisdom--whether you believe it to be divine or organic--and find a consistent truth in the majority of it.
Except for some of Paul's stuff. He's got a lot of divinely led stuff in there, but he's also kind of a little twerp who goes off on his own tirades sometimes. But he's an interesting case, cause just when you think he is that guy who judges all drug addicts harshly because of insecurity over his own past, he drops something pretty dope.
Take 1 Corinthians 13. I saw it in a dream before I ever read it and based my language instruction upon it. And there it is from Paul. And I don't mean just the section on Love that everyone parrots around so much. Take the beginning 13:1-2. Skill without love is nothing. If only we applied that in our society...
<< I think we are splitting hairs here. >>
I tend to do that.
<< Dobson is not maliciously and intentionally deceitful, he is merely pathological. >>
/agreed. Strongly, even. Why people feel that they should follow someone who is so clearly broken is beyond me.
<< In fact, it's worse because he's misleading others whereas his PBJ cult would probably be "cult" in the other meaning. >>
As long as his PBJ cult didn't involve pushing a political agenda that involved preaching things that were psychologically damaging to ~10% of the population, and voting for the supression of a woman's right to determine whether or not she will carry a child, I'd be fine with the PBJ cult.
<< he's also kind of a little twerp who goes off on his own tirades sometimes. >>
Ya' think? I was going for misogynist pig, myself, but the milder language is alright, too.
Kem
"We invite you to pray on his behalf — and to tune in."
Put me down for the former. The latter sounds boring.
Hey, the primaries have not even started yet. Lets wait until we know who the frontrunners are for each party before we rush to judgment. As uncomfortable as i am with supporting Rudy, im actually leaning towards either Thompson or Romney, Hillary is even more scarier.
By the way, I heard on H and C last night that Dobson believes that conservatives will be more mobilized under a Democratic president. This reaks of the argument of the Naderites in 2000 who said that a Bush administration would unite the Left. So are we more united when we are in the opposition or in power.
I agree with IP that the Christian Right is kind of frustrating in that it does not want to look at the achievements we have won so far. As far as being a "committed Christian," just like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder. I can not judge others "commitment" to any religion. That is between them and God. I can encourage and uplift them, but not cast judgment on the person. I am sick of this idea that you have to be a fundamentalist Christian to be ok with social conservatives. After all, the pro-life and pro-family movements were started by Catholics, not evangelicals. Evangelicals decided to jump on the bandwagon after the Reagan revolution, not before. I would like for my president, senator, congressman, governor, state senator, state representative, county board member, and mayor, alderman to have the same faith as me. However, that is not reality.
This is the problem with mixing religion and politics. Politics is about power, money, and compromise. Religion deals in absolutes. Notice that we never say that the Republican or Democratic Parties are the only way to eternal life. Yet, the GOP has had to work to gain votes in other religious groups such as Catholics, Mormons, and Jews because of the perceived fundamentalist stranglehold on the GOP.
Remember the disaster of 1992 when Patrick Buchanan declared that a "religious war" had been waged at the RNC Convention in Houston. In that same convention, Pat Robertson went on some screed about lesbian witches taking over America. I really do not think that we should repeat this ever again. One can be pro-life and pro-family without having to take a dive into the lunacy of James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Rod Parsley.
Good for Thompson for putting his foot down. Lets be the party of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, not Mad Max and Fred Phelps!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
Nice post, Robert.
<< This is the problem with mixing religion and politics. Politics is about power, money, and compromise. Religion deals in absolutes. >>
An argument could be made that the twentieth century completely redefined the way that religion works in our society along political lines. Social conservatives who are Catholics and social conservatives who are Evangelicals do compromise and grant each other a great deal more respect today than they did back in the 60's, and are typically more tolerant of each other than they are of the Benedict Arnolds in their midst, who share their faith but not their politics. This is a pretty major shift in the way that interfaith relationships work, and it's really very recent.
<< Yet, the GOP has had to work to gain votes in other religious groups such as Catholics, Mormons, and Jews because of the perceived fundamentalist stranglehold on the GOP. >>
Another excellent point. I really want to like Mitt Romney. I want to have a candidate who has innovative solutions to real problems. I like what he did with insurance reform in Massachusettes, and I strongly feel that we need someone who has both the intelligence and the guts to take actions that improve a Bad Situation, which is what we currently have when we look at our national debt. I think he would make smart decisions in the White House.
But I can't. I simply can't bring myself to vote for a guy who allows pressure from his church to influence his policy making when it comes to restricting the rights of American citizens, and embryonic stem cell research is one of my hot button issues. I have nightmares about standing in the voting booth and choosing between Romney and Hillary. (Figuratively speaking.)
I understand the dilemna that Mad Max and Fred Phelps find themselves in, from the other side of the spectrum. I'm withholding judgment until I've seen a little more in the debates, but 2008 is looking like yet another election year where I feel like I'd rather gnaw my arm off than punch the ticket.
Kem
here are some interesting tidbits about evangelicals and where their votes are going.
In 2006, one third of evangelicals split ranks with the Republicans and voted for Blue Dog Democrats, mostly in the Midwest, South, and Mountain States. What is happening is that many evangelicals are now split and are not as monolithic as Dobson, the media like to claim that we are. For instance, the National Association of Evangelicals passed a resolution calling for Americans and Christians to learn more about global warming and to be better stewards of Gods creation. The Vineyard ruffled some conservative feathers for calling for a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
Dobson's threat of a third party candidacy to "teach a lesson" to the Republican Party is nothing but pure arrogance and a desperate attempt to maintain power and credibility. What Dobson might be more angrier about is that more and more evangelicals are leaving the Republican party and turning leftwards.
Yes, they still hold to more conservative values like the right to life, and the sanctity of marriage, and believe that religion does have a role in the public space. However, many evangelicals do have a concern for the downtrodden and the poor. From what i have gathered through many conversations, evangelicals are caught between two parties that are now representing two vices, Republicans have come to represent the party of greed and the Democrats have become the party of lust. In the end though, for us, we have one ultimate authority, Jesus Christ, who is above all parties, creeds, philosophies, etc.
While I still identify with the Republicans on many issues, i am perturbed that the GOP here locally is having a tendency to be about nothing but money, money, money!! If it means selling out any principle that we may have so some big donor will give money, then so be it say the powers that be! While the true believers are toiling away with the grunt work of volunteering and carrying the party, the party officials will show up to bask in the glory and limelight! All in the name of "Politics is Local."
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
"In 2006, one third of evangelicals split ranks with the Republicans and voted for Blue Dog Democrats, mostly in the Midwest, South, and Mountain States."
Link?
"While I still identify with the Republicans on many issues, i am perturbed that the GOP here locally is having a tendency to be about nothing but money, money, money!! If it means selling out any principle that we may have so some big donor will give money, then so be it say the powers that be! While the true believers are toiling away with the grunt work of volunteering and carrying the party, the party officials will show up to bask in the glory and limelight! All in the name of "Politics is Local.""
Huh?
Gordy, i think what Dunn is trying to say is that the we have lost on principle. If it was not for the "values voters," Republicans would not have captured Congress in 1994, elected Bush twice or many other things. However, as an observer of what has been going on with the local Republican central committee, i am quite concerned that the issue is more about appealing to big donors then the actual grassroots activities.
For instance, at the Reform Illinois rally in Champaign, I noticed how the Champaign County Chairman only called on a select few people during the question and answer period. It seemed that the left side of the room was where all of the big wealthy donors were, and on the proverbial right side of the room, the actual folks doing the grunt work here locally. The folks doing the majority of the work were in effect silenced. The lesson was, you pay big to get your questions answered.
From attending the Happy and Lunch Hours as well, the appearance was one of a bunch of yuppies whose only connection to the Party was that their parents were. When asked about positions on key critical local issues, such as the Police Review Board in Urbana and Champaign, i heard comments from several leaders that the GOP does not take stances on issues, we want to be a "big" tent as possible. Hmm, I wonder if that big tent includes the views of Osama Bin Laden? After all, he is wealthy, famous, just wants to bring international jihad to the west! Would someone like Osama be welcomed into this "big" tent? Mark Thompson has been organizing the pro-America rallies again, let me guess, our central committee and YRs do not want to offend the possible Cindy Sheehans, Noam Chomskys, or Michael Moores of this world! So, sorry Mark, our local GOP can not support you, we do not want to run the risk of angering Carl Estabrook. They are all rich and famous and could be potential donors as long as we don't stand for anything!
In fact, why not already pick Barickmans successor, hmm, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! He has vast amounts of wealth and could get his buddies in Venezuela, Cuba, and China to donate money to the central committee.
Ahhhh, the joy of moral relativism, it is so pervasive in society, that is is now a bipartisan cancer!
Bring on the third party! I would love to see the Republicans "Ralphed!"
"For instance, at the Reform Illinois rally in Champaign, I noticed how the Champaign County Chairman only called on a select few people during the question and answer period. It seemed that the left side of the room was where all of the big wealthy donors were, and on the proverbial right side of the room, the actual folks doing the grunt work here locally. The folks doing the majority of the work were in effect silenced. The lesson was, you pay big to get your questions answered."
I was at that same event, and everyone who raised their hand got to ask a question. Even Fred Welch, as he's as grassroots as it gets. :-) Frankly, I don't even rememeber a single "wealthy donor" being there, let alone dominating the discussion.
In fact, there's a video available on the Illinois Channel if you want to watch it to refresh your memory and provide me with an example of a volunteer being ignored at that event.
If you have a problem with how the local Republican Party is being run, then I urge you to get involved and take on a leadership role. The fact is that the GOP could be doing so much more, but like all volunteer organizations, we just don't have enough active people to do everything we want to do. If you think the GOP should be more involved on this issue or that event, make it happen.
Gordy, at a Young Republican event, lunch hour, I tried to get folks out to the Urbana City Council to stand for our police department. I was told that the Champaign County Republican Party does not take positions on anything controversial. It seems that the main events that the only educational events put on by any Republican organization happens to be the Active Senior meetings. How come the YRs are mostly into these uppity social events where we just get together, have lunch, a drink, then leave? There is no substance to these events at all. Gordy, I have been volunteering my rearend off, every chance I can get! Heck, I am even trying to organize an Urbana Republican group that can meet in Urbana to give those few of us in Urbana who are Republicans/conservatives a chance to network.
Any one interested? Oh, by the way, i have contacted Jason about being a precinct committeeman when he calls for them, no response whatsoever! Do not tell me I am not volunteering at all!
Robert Dunn
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
"I was told that the Champaign County Republican Party does not take positions on anything controversial."
Who told you that, and how exactly did they phrase it?
For what it's worth, I wouldn't have wanted the Champaign County GOP to take a position on the Urbana Police Review Board.
I don't think that's the proper role for the Party - to take official stances on issues before various local government bodies. The CCRCC doesn't even endorse candidates without a vote of 75%. Would you have had a meeting of Precinct Committeeman to allow them to vote on whether they should support or oppose a CPRB in Urbana? I wouldn't. What about for the Champaign Section 8 issue? How about the Savoy Sales Tax?
Personally, and I'm just one Precinct Committeeman, I don't want the Party to publicly take positions on those issues - not because the issues are controversial, but because that's not what the Party should be doing.
You may disagree - put it on the agenda at the next Exec or PC meeting, and see if anyone else agrees with you, and then come up with a process for how to have regular votes on these sorts of things.
"Heck, I am even trying to organize an Urbana Republican group that can meet in Urbana to give those few of us in Urbana who are Republicans/conservatives a chance to network."
Great, but you should know that as an Urbana Republican and PC, this is the first I've heard about you doing so.
That said, I've thought about setting up something like this for several years, but I just haven't had the time. If you get something set up, email me the details and I'd love to come to the meetings.
"Oh, by the way, i have contacted Jason about being a precinct committeeman when he calls for them, no response whatsoever! Do not tell me I am not volunteering at all!"
One, I was responding to an anon commenter (11:34), not you. Two, I never said that they don't volunteer at all. I said that if they want the Party to do something new, it would be helpful if they would take on the leadership of doing so.
I'm glad you want to take a more active role. Don't take it personally when other people aren't interested in the same things that you are, or that people have a different opinion about what the Party should be doing.
"I was at that same event, and everyone who raised their hand got to ask a question."
No one on my side of the room got to ask a question.
"No one on my side of the room got to ask a question."
I'm not sure which side you were on (I was on the left, in the back behind the TV cameras), but I didn't see anyone with a hand raised who got ignored.
I remember them asking, at the end, if there were any other questions and not seeing any other hands, and so they adjourned.
That said, I'm not sure asking a question at that Rally is really worth getting worked up about. It's not as if any of the questions that were asked at the Rally are going to result in any sort of meaningful change. Things will get fixed at the State Party the same way that things always get fixed at volunteer-driven organizations - by a small group of committed people getting involved and fixing things. Questions at feel-good, do-nothing public meetings don't fix anything.
Would you have had a meeting of Precinct Committeeman to allow them to vote on whether they should support or oppose a CPRB in Urbana? I wouldn't. What about for the Champaign Section 8 issue? How about the Savoy Sales Tax?
I actually think that would be a great idea. A mechanism would need to be put in place to have it done in a timely manner, along with have a proponent of each side debate before the PC's. Then if a strong majority of PC's vote one way, say 75%, we do a press release.
On the downside, it might upset some elected GOP officials who hold the opposite position.
"I actually think that would be a great idea. A mechanism would need to be put in place to have it done in a timely manner, along with have a proponent of each side debate before the PC's. Then if a strong majority of PC's vote one way, say 75%, we do a press release."
I think it would be a huge waste of time, and the votes would be completely meaningless.
I would prefer that the Party's mission be to actually elect people to these various government bodies so that they can have votes that count.
The job of the Republican Party is not to be a shadow government, voting on this issue or that issue. It's job is to elect good people to serve in the actual government.
The job of the
Republican Partyall political parties is not to be a shadow government, voting on this issue or that issue. It's job is to elect good people to serve in the actual government.I think it would be a huge waste of time, and the votes would be completely meaningless.
It would be a statement from elected/appointed party activists (PC's) saying this is what we as a party believe. It would not be a shadow gov't - it would be an effort to lobby those elected whose votes do count.
Exactly, Arvid.
Let me give you an example - the CCNH management debate.
Now, imagine repeating that process for every single issue which catches someone's attention that is on the agenda of the County Board, City of Champaign, or City of Urbana. We'd need a full-time staff just to keep track of the agendas, send out the notices, and prepare the research. And we'd been meeting for several hours at a time, at least every other week, and accomplishing absolutely nothing.
"It would be a statement from elected/appointed party activists (PC's) saying this is what we as a party believe. It would not be a shadow gov't - it would be an effort to lobby those elected whose votes do count."
If a PC wants to lobby an elected official, they can pick up the phone and call them. They don't need a meeting and a vote. It's not like these elected officials are unreachable, or will only listen to a vote of the entire Central Committee.
This would be like having a Platform Committee meeting, one issue at a time, every other week, all year long. I'm just one PC, but I'm not interested in having the Party's time and attention and resources devoted to doing all that arguing for absolutely no effect.
but, a press release from the party says "this is who we are, this is what we support". We get press releases from AWARE, from the CCHCC - I'd just like a public voice out there, on the right, saying this is a great idea, or this is a terrible idea. The Chamber hasn't done it. Who else locally will engage?
(I realize this blog is "engaging", but I don't know its coverage.)
"but, a press release from the party says "this is who we are, this is what we support". We get press releases from AWARE, from the CCHCC - I'd just like a public voice out there, on the right, saying this is a great idea, or this is a terrible idea."
I hope that the Party never becomes analagous to AWARE or CCHCC.
"The Chamber hasn't done it. Who else locally will engage?"
Perhaps the Chamber should. Or the Farm Bureau. Or the Med Society. It's not as if there aren't center and center-right interest groups in Champaign County. Let them fill (or not fill) their role, and let the Party's role be to compete in elections.
I am not comfortable with outing folks who are not on IP, but the current chairman of the Champaign County Young Republicans told me this. I was not asking for Jason Barickman to call a press conference and say that the Champaign County Republicans believe that a Police Review Board in Urbana is the wrong way to improve police/community relations. All I was asking for was for people to come out as individuals. In fact all Republicans that i have talked to in Champaign County, including former and current police officers opposed it. I have yet to meet one Champaign County Republican who absolutely agrees with the likes of Danielle Chynoweth and Brian Dolinar, I could be wrong though!
As far as Republicans taking strong stands on controversial issues, what about the endorsement of Chief Illiniwek as the honored symbol of the University of Illinois? It is actually in the IL GOP platform! Surely, there has to be a few Republicans who are in the anti-Chief column as there are many Democrats who are pro-Chief! I think its inconsistent that organizations affiliated with this area such as the College Republicans at UIUC and the state party have currently or in the past have taken a stand on the Chief Illiniwek issue, yet refuse to take stands on other issues!
As well, there are many controversial social issues that the National and State GOP has taken stands on, abortion and gay marriage, the most famous example. The party is a pro-life and pro-family values in both the national and state platforms. Do we have Republicans who are pro-choice and support same-sex marriage? Yes, we do! However, the party platform states that the GOP is a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage party. Have there been any such things as a County platform? That would be an idea worth starting. All this would state is what both parties believe in for the most part. There can be some disagreement. For instance, the Champaign Liquor issue divided Republicans. The MTD issue is not unanimous (sp) amongst Republicans. However, we for the most part believe in limited constitutional government, the right to life, rule of law, a free market, safe streets, and traditional values.
BTW, Republicans are great at being a big tent though. Heck we even supported Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island for heavens sake! The Democrats, in my opinion, are slowly realizing that they have not been a big tent for a long while. I long for the day when a Democrat is nominated that is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, sort of like Glenn Poshard. If Republicans can support Rudy, why can not the Dems in the future support a Zell Miller, Bob Casey, Evan Bayh, or a Harold Ford Jr. for President?
As far as volunteering, Gordy, I am still interested in organizing this. I have talked with Heather Stevenson and Mark Sheldan about this, and they think its a great idea. If you can email me Gordy with some practical advice on how to kick this into gear, that would be great.
I also encourage those in Champaign in the party to start a City of Champaign club. These clubs will not be a competitor with the county party, but add to it! Maybe the Dems could take some advice as well and start getting organizations started in the rural areas and small towns in Champaign County, rather than concentrating mostly on the urban areas.
Anyways, again Gordy, please email me with some direction since you are more familiar with party members in Urbana then I am!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
"I am not comfortable with outing folks who are not on IP, but the current chairman of the Champaign County Young Republicans told me this. I was not asking for Jason Barickman to call a press conference and say that the Champaign County Republicans believe that a Police Review Board in Urbana is the wrong way to improve police/community relations. All I was asking for was for people to come out as individuals."
Then you didn't need any formal Party action, and you could have organized these individuals yourself. Since it was clearly so important to you, why didn't you?
"As far as Republicans taking strong stands on controversial issues, what about the endorsement of Chief Illiniwek as the honored symbol of the University of Illinois? It is actually in the IL GOP platform! Surely, there has to be a few Republicans who are in the anti-Chief column as there are many Democrats who are pro-Chief! I think its inconsistent that organizations affiliated with this area such as the College Republicans at UIUC and the state party have currently or in the past have taken a stand on the Chief Illiniwek issue, yet refuse to take stands on other issues!"
A platform is a platform (i.e., usually connected to a convention), and that's different than taking a stand on various local issues. If you want the local GOP to debate and adopt a platform every two years, try to make it happen. I'd love to see the response you get. Personally, (and I'm just one PC) I think it's a waste of time and energy, but better every two years than every two weeks.
"As well, there are many controversial social issues that the National and State GOP has taken stands on, abortion and gay marriage, the most famous example."
Does the RNC or IL GOP issue statements about the Party's particular position on specific pieces of legislation?
Does the RNC or IL GOP lobby Republican elected officials to vote a certain way on certain pieces of legislation?
Because that's what you're asking the local GOP to do.
You know how to reach me if you want to further discuss the Urbana stuff.
"I remember them asking, at the end, if there were any other questions and not seeing any other hands, and so they adjourned."
There was a sea of hands raised on the right side, but the meeting was adjourned due to time constraints, at which time one woman on the right side took the mic without permission and made rude remarks.
I agree, though, that asking a question there is not worth getting worked up about.
"There was a sea of hands raised on the right side, but the meeting was adjourned due to time constraints, at which time one woman on the right side took the mic without permission and made rude remarks."
I apologize then, because I didn't see that, and I must have missed it.