Dobson gives Fred the evangelical kiss of death

posted at 11:10 am on September 20, 2007 by Allahpundit

Ripped from the Hot Air headlines. So much for the rumors in July that Fred was going to be evangelicals’ fair-haired boy. You know, in my many years of using e-mail, I don’t think I’ve ever once sat down, set out my thoughts on a political candidate, and then fired it off to multiple recipients unsolicited with the greeting, “Dear friends.” Just not something private citizens acting in their capacity as individuals and not on behalf of any organization are wont to do.

But I guess some citizens are different.

In a private e-mail obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, Dobson accuses the former Tennessee senator and actor of being weak on the campaign trail and wrong on issues dear to social conservatives.

“Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won’t talk at all about what he believes, and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?” Dobson wrote.

“He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent ‘want to.’ And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!”…

Gary Schneeberger, a Focus on the Family spokesman, confirmed that Dobson wrote the e-mail. Schneeberger declined to comment further, saying it would be inappropriate because Dobson’s comments about presidential candidates are made as an individual and not as a representative of Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization restricted from partisan politics.

If Dobson wanted the e-mail to be private, why on earth did his spokesman confirm that he wrote it? More quirky private-citizen behavior, I guess. But how about Fred’s bona fides as a good Christian? Did Dobson at least give him the green light on that after the … troubles earlier this year? Not so much, not so much:

In his e-mail addressed “Dear friends,” Dobson includes the text of a recent news story highlighting Thompson’s statement that while he was baptized in the Church of Christ, he does not attend church regularly and won’t speak about his faith on the stump.

U.S. News and World Report quoted Dobson earlier this year as questioning Thompson’s commitment to the Christian faith — comments Dobson contended were not put in proper context. Dobson in this week’s e-mail writes that suppositions “about the former senator’s never having professed to be a Christian are turning out to be accurate in substance.”

I knew that story would be bigger than you guys that it would. Having now ruled out Fred, Rudy, and McCain, Dobson’s left with the only major candidate who, according to a Christian friend of mine, doesn’t qualify as a Christian. Toss ‘em the red meat, Mitt. They’ll come around.

Exit question: Is David Brody right? Is Rudy the big winner of what may be an evangelical free for all?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Fred is a noice guy and a great actor, but without emmy award winning scriptwriters, he isn’t ready for prime-time.

Rudy is the man.

JayHaw Phrenzie on September 20, 2007 at 11:13 AM

it would be inappropriate because Dobson’s comments about presidential candidates are made as an individual and not as a representative of Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization restricted from partisan politics.

Uh-huh.

SouthernDem on September 20, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Exit question: Is David Brody right? Is Rudy the big winner of what may be an evangelical free for all?

You know what…I don’t have an answer on that, that’s a really good question. Unless at least one of them quits early, that’s an entirely plausible outcome. Of course, that could be a problem, given how badly evangelicals split off in the 06 election, some of them might take their toys and go home.

As for Dobson, I still say he’s just banging his sippy cup on his hi-chair to get attention and maybe campaign promises.

Bad Candy on September 20, 2007 at 11:16 AM

So much for the rumors in July that Fred was going to be evangelicals’ fair-haired boy.

Hey, Dobson doesn’t speak for all of us. Not that Fred is my fair-haired boy…

I’m just saying that Dobson doesn’t speak for me, or all Evangelicals. Too many though, maybe.

nailinmyeye on September 20, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Well, Dobson’s comments were in a private e-mail. It wasn’t like he said this stuff “officially,” or on his program. I’m under-enthusiastic about Fred Thompson. Not for all of the reasons that Dobson states, but some. Dobson does hold some sway in the Christian community, but I don’t think this is the kiss of death for Fred. I think that’ll come as more people get familiar with his record.

Ordinary1 on September 20, 2007 at 11:17 AM

and yeah, I think this does help Rudy some.

Ordinary1 on September 20, 2007 at 11:19 AM

If Fred didn’t pass Dobson’s Christian-Enough Test, I don’t see how Mitt would.

Who is he going to back? Sam Brownback?

amerpundit on September 20, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Dobson’s left with the only major candidate who, according to a Christian friend of mine, doesn’t qualify as a Christian

I think Mike Huckabee is an ordained Southern Baptist minister.

Valiant on September 20, 2007 at 11:20 AM

I think from now on, Allah should start all of his posts with “Dear Friends,”

That email was about as “private” as this comment. It was a shot across the bow of the Thompson campaign.

Slublog on September 20, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Well, Dobson’s comments were in a private e-mail.

Who the hell do you know that writes like that in a private e-mail? It might be a wink/nudge “private” email so he doesn’t get in trouble with the FEC, but it ain’t a private email.

Bad Candy on September 20, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Another point for Fred in my book.

Hannibal Smith on September 20, 2007 at 11:24 AM

This is one evangelical Christian who thinks Dobson needs to get stuffed.

CurtZHP on September 20, 2007 at 11:25 AM

I knew that story would be bigger than you guys that it would.
Exit question: Is David Brody right? Is Rudy the big winner of what may be an evangelical free for all?

The only reason you knew that was because you have your finger on the pulse of the evangelicals. This group think mentality is typical of the extremist religious right.

Exit answer: I haven’t seen David Brody be right about anything yet, so I tend to trust my instincts and go the other direction. I think the evangelicals will ultimately be very pragmatic about this and vote, for the most part, for a single candidate. If Mitt can convince them on conservative social issues, then they’ll willingly vote for him. If he can’t, they’ll hold their noses and vote for Rudy.

csdeven on September 20, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Slublog on September 20, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Slubbo, next time you post at AoS, you should totally start it with “Dear Friends” and if you disagree with something or think its a bad idea, say “Not for me my brothers. Not for me!”

Bad Candy on September 20, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Dobson doesn’t speak for me. I get a little leary of “preachers” getting too involved in the political process. I am a big boy and can make my own decisions on which candidate best reflects my values and goals for this country. I don’t need Dobson to tell me. Now, if he wants to speak to me about salvation through Christ or God’s blessings in my life, I am all ears.

Mallard T. Drake on September 20, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Slubbo, next time you post at AoS, you should totally start it with “Dear Friends” and if you disagree with something or think its a bad idea, say “Not for me my brothers. Not for me!”

Heh heh. It’s not quite “don’t taze me, bro,” but it does have a nice ring to it.

Slublog on September 20, 2007 at 11:26 AM

The Judas Kiss-Off.

saint kansas on September 20, 2007 at 11:26 AM

My friends, I think I’m gonna start doing that everytime I don’t like something like when preachers who have gotten too big for their britches think they’re kingmakers and can order people to vote for candidates, Not for me my brothers. Not for me!

Bad Candy on September 20, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Slublog on September 20, 2007 at 11:26 AM

True, but now everyone’s doing “Don’t taze me, bro.” Hell, O’Reilly’s even pushing Don’t Taze Me Bro bumper stickers if you buy his merchandise.

Bad Candy on September 20, 2007 at 11:29 AM

I’ll just repeat what I said last night:

“Why do religious leaders think they are kingmakers? Didn’t Napoleon end that theory by placing the crown on his own head?

It blatantly says ‘my judgment is better than yours’. I find that ironic in that Protestantism (gross exaggeration) says no man can destroy another’s personal relationship with God. But look to a man to determine your vote.”

Having said that though, it is true that people who look up to people often solicit their advise, so it is conceivable that this would be a private response to a block of questions. However, considering the history, I suspect it is a little of the latter and a lot of the former.

Spirit of 1776 on September 20, 2007 at 11:32 AM

I think from now on, Allah should start all of his posts with “Dear Friends,”

That email was about as “private” as this comment. It was a shot across the bow of the Thompson campaign.

Slublog on September 20, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Hehe.

PRCalDude on September 20, 2007 at 11:33 AM

I think the evangelicals will ultimately be very pragmatic about this and vote, for the most part, for a single candidate.

Finally, something I can agree with you about.

ulyses on September 20, 2007 at 11:33 AM

I still like Fred. And Spongebob. Dobson ain’t so good at venturing out of his comfort zone.

infidel4life on September 20, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Huckabee is likely to get the nod from Dobson and many other Christian leaders. Mitt won’t because of his stance dancing on social issues.

I wouldn’t take this too lightly right now. There’s going to be a very big primary push for Christians to get out and vote. Depending on how successful it is and the rest of the voter turn out there’s a chance they could heavily influence the nomination.

bj1126 on September 20, 2007 at 11:35 AM

You guys talk as if Rudy is some kind of devil worshipper. He is a good Catholic, good enough to bother to have his marriage to his cousin annulled.

tommylotto on September 20, 2007 at 11:37 AM

As an evangelical minus the Bible thumping, I don’t particularly follow Dobson, but I pretty much agree with him completely on this one. I think Fred is an empty suit candidate. I haven’t heard him talk about any issue in a way that interests me. His record is minimal, and he’s as Washington insider as anyone can get as far as I’m concerned.

Frankly, all the top-tier GOP candidates are lousy. My money’s currently on Huckabee, although if Gingrich really does get into the race that could be interesting. The thing I like about Mike H. though is that everything he talks about is the real deal with him: when he talks about health care, he’s lived through improving his health. When he talks about family values, he’s a pastor. When he talks about running an efficient government, he’s had a good run as a successful Governor. He’s the #1 guy endorsing the Fair Tax too, which I think is one of the critical issues our country faces.

If any of the top-tier candidates wins the nomination, at this point I’m very much considering staying home in Nov. ’08. If the people want a weak Washington politician vs. Hillary, they can have both of them and good riddance.

Jared White on September 20, 2007 at 11:38 AM

“Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S.

So Dobson is against states rights? That is after all what Fred said. He wants to put more power in the hands of the states instead of trying to craft “one size fits all” legislation at the federal level. Our country is too diverse for blanket policies and I believe in more power being given to the states.
You want illegal aliens in CA fine, but we don’t want them in GA. If we want to pass a law to crack down on them that is our business. You want gay marriage in MA, have at it but bring the rest of us along for the ride.

LakeRuins on September 20, 2007 at 11:41 AM

bj1126 on September 20, 2007 at 11:35 AM

They put in that Nanny Stater Huck there is a very good chance I’ll sit out. National Smoking Ban my ass, and I don’t even smoke, what is he gonna ban fatty foods, guns, SUVs and alcohol too? Prohibition 2.0? Screw that, Nanny doesn’t know best.

Bad Candy on September 20, 2007 at 11:41 AM

This is one evangelical Christian who thinks Dobson needs to get stuffed.

Amen to that. I respect him in terms of issues regarding family matters. But he doesnt speak for me in terms of politics.

JVelez on September 20, 2007 at 11:46 AM

For some reason Christians have been lumped into the ideological category of the non-thinnking Moveon.org hordes, just Christian flavored. Times they are a changin’.

Sam Brownback won the “Christian Statesmen of the Year” award from a well known , very political pastor. Then he went pro-illegal alien and used Christianity as a front for it. Bush the super Christian President that consults God, went pro-illegal too, I’ll not be fooled again. Dobson can stuff it.

I’m supporting the candidate that will at least acknowledge that our current social security system is unsustainable. But I’m stil waiting for a plan Fred…

Theworldisnotenough on September 20, 2007 at 11:47 AM

So he passes a smoking ban and he’s suddenly a nanny stater? o.O That’s quite a leap in logic. Further more I think you’ll see more people sitting out if Rudy is nominated. The math on the demographics for the Republican party do not look good if someone is nominated that the Christians can’t support. It’s essentially giving the White House to Hillary. Too many folks are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

bj1126 on September 20, 2007 at 11:48 AM

I put my faith in God, keep one hand covering my wallet, and one wary eye on the preacher.

Dobson made up my mind. There is another check in the mail Fred!

Limerick on September 20, 2007 at 11:48 AM

The thing I like about Mike H. though is that everything he talks about is the real deal with him: when he talks about health care, he’s lived through improving his health. When he talks about family values, he’s a pastor.

My friends,

While Huck’s transition into a healthy lifestyle is certainly more than admirable, and he works hard to live a moral life as a pastor, he also seems to want to wield gov’t power like a sledgehammer to enforce morality upon the rest of us.

Some of us still favor a type of governance that doesn’t dictate our lifestyles to us, or try to take away or ban us from owning certain things, some may like this sort of thing, but I say, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!

Bad Candy on September 20, 2007 at 11:49 AM

The kiss of death would be if Bush endorsed a candidate.

terryannonline on September 20, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Now, if [Dobson] wants to speak to me about salvation through Christ or God’s blessings in my life, I am all ears.

Mallard T. Drake on September 20, 2007 at 11:25 AM

That’s exactly what Dobson is saying: “Vote for somebody besides Giuliani, McCain or Thompson – or go to Hell.”

logis on September 20, 2007 at 11:52 AM

My Dad’s a Baptist minister and I sure as heck don’t think he’d make a good president.

Maybe this is GOOD for Fred. Maybe relunctant Indies will now be more inclined to vote for him.

We complain when Clintons and Sharptons and Jackson do their campagning in the church, how is this any different?

stenwin77 on September 20, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Is Dobson holding out for Newt?

Jay on September 20, 2007 at 11:53 AM

I think Huckabee could back away from his nanny state comments and still be OK. With the ultimate demise of Fred on the horizon, Huck MIGHT just think he could replace Fred at the top of the second tier, or maybe even get into the first tier. If that is the case, he could start running to the center because he would have a legitimate chance at the nomination. Honestly I think that Huck has been running for the VP slot all along and that is why he has been the staunchest conservative. The problem is that if he does start running to the center, his appeal as THE conservative will lessen just as Mitt’s and Rudy’s are already.

My money is still on Rudy and then Mitt. Of course the Fred groupies money will be in Fred’s family’s pockets before too long. Probably during the run up to the general since no one will be paying attention to Fred screwing the system. No one except me that is.

csdeven on September 20, 2007 at 11:54 AM

So he passes a smoking ban and he’s suddenly a nanny stater? o.O That’s quite a leap in logic.

My Friends,

Prohibition isn’t Nanny Statism?

As for this,

Further more I think you’ll see more people sitting out if Rudy is nominated. The math on the demographics for the Republican party do not look good if someone is nominated that the Christians can’t support. It’s essentially giving the White House to Hillary. Too many folks are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

bj1126 on September 20, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Maybe, but those of us who are focused on personal liberty and stopping the rapidly increasing intrusions on personal choices can do plenty of damage ourselves. You might think his plan to impose an authoritarian health regime on the nation is acceptable, agains I say (and I’m sure many others do too). Not for me, my brothers. Not for me!

The Right Reverend BC

Bad Candy on September 20, 2007 at 11:54 AM

I personally support Rudy as my first choice.

Don’t know enough about Fred, but if he were the candidate he would get my vote against the she-hag or any other democrat traitor.

And Dobson has not spoken my evangelical thoughts for years in the political realm. I would refer him to C.S. Lewis’ thoughts on the best person for the job which may not be an evangelical. Having lived in NYC most of my life, Rudy Giuliani fits that bill for me hands down.

Mommynator on September 20, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Dobson made up my mind. There is another check in the mail Fred!

Limerick on September 20, 2007 at 11:48 AM

O c’mon! You don’t really think that way do you? Tell me you study the candidate and make your decision on that and not your personal feelings towards a different persons opinion. PLEASE!

csdeven on September 20, 2007 at 11:56 AM

The math on the demographics for the Republican party do not look good if someone is nominated that the Christians can’t support. It’s essentially giving the White House to Hillary.

No, it’s not essentially giving the White House to Hillary. You are. If you folks are going to do this, at least try to assume some responsibility for it.

Slublog on September 20, 2007 at 11:57 AM

The evangelicals will come along anyway, with or without Dobson. It is the middle roaders who will shove this election over to the left or right.

Limerick on September 20, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Dobson is becoming increasingly irrelevant in today’s evangelical movement. I think we’re seeing a waning of the megachurch era. Not that we’re seeing a waning of evangelicalism, but even some of the bigger churches now are encouraging ‘small group’ fellowships.
Also, I think that smaller, organically grown community/neighborhood churches are on the increase.

It’s almost sad to see those who once held such great influence flail about, stomping their feet in some desperate attempt to maintain relevance or power of persuasion.

Hey, Dr. Dobson, you had a great ride and you’re doing great work. Relax, play some golf, do some fishing, take a nice vacation, enjoy being a husband, father, and grandfather. We got things handled here.

Matticus Finch on September 20, 2007 at 12:00 PM

I love and respect Dr. Dobson. I don’t however, vote the way he suggests, and I never have. You all who assume that “Christians” or “Evangelical Christians” will somehow be consumed with turmoil over this are guilty of the same type of political racial profiling the Democrats routinely practice.
We have brains you know. We will support the candidate who is both ideologically correct AND most genuine. The closest candidate to that, in my opinion is FRED.

edgehead on September 20, 2007 at 12:02 PM

As a free speech advocate, I do not find it distasteful that Dobson address a group of people as a private citizen or as a so-called private citizen, even if he is fishing for an audience.

Evangelists are fishermen of men, thank God for that.

I am against McCain-Feingold, and I am against the tax laws that are currently applied to some but not all religious groups. Taking away a tax-exempt status from a religious group because it or a member expresses political opinion is shameful as if political behaviour is exempt from moral examination.

The use of tax law to stop opinionating from the pulpit has been the most evil form of thought control and the primary wedge used to divorce America from using faith as a part of everyday life.

Oh shame, a so-called religious leader is proving himself to be a hypocrite by effectively publishing a tract (such tracts often heavily laced with religious comparisons were a major weapon of the American Revolution). His criminal opinions weigh some politician against the requirement of the so-called religious leader’s faith. The self proclaimed religious leader, who is not obeyed by many and therefore is a fool, dares to apply his rabid faith in a way that can mind control the public and ruin electoral chances of a major political movement.

If he can fool the Evangelists into changing their votes the vote ain’t secure anyway. People all over the net are trashing every candidate out there. Even Reverends like Jackson and Sharpton.

I read Dr. Dobson’s opinions all the time. I appreciate his debates against secularism on television where he is unashamedly Christian. It was Dr. Dobson the watchdog who first clued me into politically correct changes in Bible translations going on at a publishing house. I am actually interested in his opinion. I am not a sheep for Dobson, only for Christ.

entagor on September 20, 2007 at 12:05 PM

As a free speech advocate, I do not find it distasteful that Dobson address a group of people as a private citizen or as a so-called private citizen, even if he is fishing for an audience.

Fine, and philosophically I don’t disagree, but given that he’s claiming its private, at least try and make it sound private, don’t put out an unofficial official piece and then lie when you get busted, Dobby!

Bad Candy on September 20, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Slightly off topic:

Over at Rasmussen’s, the Fred bounce is officially over. This Dobson thin can’t help.

Big S on September 20, 2007 at 12:11 PM

This will not even cause a tick in the poll numbers!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on September 20, 2007 at 12:12 PM

I will say though, I think churches be careful about getting political, or they get some of the political slime on themselves.

Bad Candy on September 20, 2007 at 12:12 PM

Tell me you study the candidate and make your decision on that and not your personal feelings towards a different persons opinion. PLEASE!

csdeven on September 20, 2007 at 11:56 AM

I do, and that’s what’s got me turned off to Rudy and Mitt. Nothing to do with religion. I just happen to think that the 2nd amendment is one of the main things that keep us free. I’m never thrilled with anyone who doesn’t think it is.

Kowboy on September 20, 2007 at 12:13 PM

I put my faith in God, keep one hand covering my walletclose to my gun, and one wary eye on the preacher.

Dobson made up my mind.

Limerick on September 20, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Maybe not you but thats how I see it.

doriangrey on September 20, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Last time I looked, we were electing a President, not a pastor. And I say this as an Evangelical Christian.

jdawg on September 20, 2007 at 12:18 PM

The line for those Waiting For Perfection is the one leading off the cliff to the right.

You work witrh flawed materials.

The perfect never comes.

(Enough to count.)

profitsbeard on September 20, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Dobson should focus more on the family and less on politics. His thoughts are just a flawed as anyone else’s. He should do what God called him to do, lead his people in the study of the bible and get out of politics. He has no more insight then Sally Fields.

Fred’s campaign will wither on its own, just like Mitt’s. They both spend too much time wondering what to say and when to say it. Hucks may move to VP along with Rudy as Pres.
McCain is all but gone, Mitt is dropping back fast, Fred is going nowhere a little slower than Mitt, Newt may enter but more as a spoiler than a threat.

Rudy (and you can bet Dobson won’t like that) is the only viable candidate that can take on the Dems, with a real conservative like Huck he may have a shot.

right2bright on September 20, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Ok, so we all should now start practicing saying PRESIDENT Hillary Clinton???

What a ride it’s gonne be…

NRA4Freedom on September 20, 2007 at 12:20 PM

James Dobson’s personal and God fearing opinion is important to me and most true evangelicals.

apostle53 on September 20, 2007 at 12:34 PM

I think Huckabee could back away from his nanny state comments and still be OK.

Agree.

Spirit of 1776 on September 20, 2007 at 12:36 PM

has anyone even heard huckabee’s name since the debates? says it all, doesnt it?

lorien1973 on September 20, 2007 at 12:37 PM

What do you have against Dobson?

Acct4u on September 20, 2007 at 12:38 PM

apostle53 on September 20, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Please elaborate. What is a “true evangelical”?

infidel4life on September 20, 2007 at 12:45 PM

James Dobson’s personal and God fearing opinion is important to me and most true evangelicals.

So anyone who doesn’t find Dobson’s opinion important is either not God-fearing or one of those knock-off, “fake” evangelicals?

Slublog on September 20, 2007 at 12:52 PM

Dobson who?

Misha
– Evangelical Christian.

Misha I on September 20, 2007 at 12:52 PM

I feel a lot of eyebrows raised toward apostle53…

see-dubya on September 20, 2007 at 12:58 PM

What do you have against Dobson?

Acct4u on September 20, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Nothing as long as he sticks to religious issues. When he starts using his religious position to pick out candidates by name, then he’s overstepped his bounds… though I question how much influence he really has.

Hollowpoint on September 20, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Still see no compelling reason to change my mind about supporting Rudy. He’s still my choice.

jeanie on September 20, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Sounds like Dr. Dobson has been hanging around Jimmy Carter again…

Jonas Parker on September 20, 2007 at 1:21 PM

see-dubya on September 20, 2007 at 12:58 PM

That why we like you. Nuthin’ slips past ya.

infidel4life on September 20, 2007 at 1:24 PM

There is one thing that seems to go by the wayside every time we talk about the Evangelical vote.

The Evangelical movement is not about who is running for president, nor is it about focusing on families and other social issues. The evangelical movement’s sole purpose is to introduce Jesus Christ in a real way to people who haven’t heard about him. That’s it in a nutshell.

There are as many opinions about the virtues of various candidates as there are evangelical Christians.

There also aren’t really any “leaders” of the evangelical movement. There are people at the forefront of the cameras, but they don’t make decisions for any body of churches. Most all evangelical churches form a loose association with a denomination but are autonomous, just like we view our relationship to God to be autonomous. IOW, there is no church hierarchy like in the Catholic Church or the Anglican or Methodist churches.

So by saying that Dobson’s rant is going to cause this great upheaval in the presidential race, I don’t think so. Some will believe and go along with him because it’s the easy thing to do. Some will dismiss his thoughts out of hand because of the person he portrays himself to be. But most, like me, will make up our own minds because we all think we’re right.

Me? I am right. (g)

Tennman on September 20, 2007 at 1:26 PM

though I question how much influence he really has.
Hollowpoint on September 20, 2007 at 1:07 PM

That’s an extraordinary hollow point.

Could you be a little more vague on Dobson’s constitutional right to free speech?

Mcguyver on September 20, 2007 at 1:29 PM

I feel a lot of eyebrows raised toward apostle53…
see-dubya on September 20, 2007 at 12:58 PM

My eyebrows just glazed over your comment, and the “static noise” of your thought, just went out the other ear.

Mcguyver on September 20, 2007 at 1:33 PM

…No one except me that is.

csdeven on September 20, 2007 at 11:54 AM

’cause you’re so special :)

It is the middle roaders who will shove this election over to the left or right.

Limerick on September 20, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Our wise friend Limerick, and a few others, above, nailed it. The middle is not as insane as it’s assumed to be. In fact, it’s saner than a few on the right/left at this time. It currently doesn’t like the right but it definitely isn’t enamored with the left. The left has ample time to demonstrate true colors. Videos will abound. It’s going to be “technology, stupid”. The kindergarten antics of the left (see Betrayus as a symbol) will all be there to view.

The middle wants to survive, families et all. It will not go for a D.C. trifecta, and not for a CiC in skirts (even though not worn any more), not at this time.

Entelechy on September 20, 2007 at 1:43 PM

The group (or label) ‘Evangelicals’ is something made up by the left. The same way they believe there’s a “black brain” and that all women think the same. (paging Sally Field!)

Sure – some Christians who agree with Dobson will probably take his advice. But to suggest that Dobson’s opinion somehow controls this mystical band of so-called ‘Evangelicals’ is a childish Liberal way to think about people (sheaple?).

As a Christian myself, (and one from Oregon at that…) – I am here to say – for the most part, everyone I know that would fall under this totally bogus and lame cypher ‘Evangelical’ are rational, free thinking, critical analyzers that like to dig up truth, rather than jump on bandwagons.

I am not denying that there are people who fit the ‘Evangelical’ stereotype – just that for us to use the left’s terminology like ‘Evangelicals’ and ‘Religious Right’ makes us sound just like the MSM, broadly labeling groups.

Contrary to what you hear on TV or read on Digg: Christians aren’t really a bunch of sweater-vest wearing prudes that speak is soft mesmerizing tones about how rock & roll is evil. Most serious Christians are hard-core critical thinkers and consider a multitude of views before making a decision. (str.org)

James Dobson’s viewpoint being just one…

whatthecrap on September 20, 2007 at 1:50 PM

You know, in my many years of using e-mail, I don’t think I’ve ever once sat down, set out my thoughts on a political candidate, and then fired it off to multiple recipients unsolicited with the greeting, “Dear friends.” Just not something private citizens acting in their capacity as individuals and not on behalf of any organization are wont to do.

Yeah, calling it “private” when Dobson clearly intended to use his religious authority to influence an election is just crap–we wouldn’t like it if anyone on the Left was being shamelessly dishonest like that, so we shouldn’t tolerate it on our side either. It didn’t say in the article, but I’d like to know just how many thousand people that “private” email went out to. I think a good rule of thumb would be: if it’s sent out in sufficient quantity to get caught in the Bulk Mail filter, it’s not a private email.

ReubenJCogburn on September 20, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Most serious Christians are hard-core critical thinkers and consider a multitude of views before making a decision. (str.org)

James Dobson’s viewpoint being just one…

whatthecrap on September 20, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Newsflash winner of this thread!

P.S. Special memo to Hollowpoint and see-dubya.

Mcguyver on September 20, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Honestly I think that Huck has been running for the VP slot all along and that is why he has been the staunchest conservative. The problem is that if he does start running to the center, his appeal as THE conservative will lessen just as Mitt’s and Rudy’s are already.

Huckabee the staunchest conservative? LOL! What planet are you living on?

Like others have pointed out he’s a big government guy, raised taxes a number of times as governor of Arkansas, and he’s as pro open-borders as G.W. Bush. I like him on social issues, but other than that his conservative credentials really aren’t that impressive.

2Brave2Bscared on September 20, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Who the hell do you know that writes like that in a private e-mail? It might be a wink/nudge “private” email so he doesn’t get in trouble with the FEC, but it ain’t a private email.

Bad Candy on September 20, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Honestly, I’ve known people to write like that. I admit that it’s odd and certainly implies some ill intent, but that doesn’t automatically make it so.

And even so, I don’t get why he shouldn’t be able to voice his opinion to as many people as he wants so long as he isn’t doing so as a representative of Focus on the Family.

Rev. Jackson is a minister, but that hasn’t stopped him from repeatedly telling us what he thinks of Barak Obama.

I’m not trying to be a Dobson apologist, but I sincerely don’t get why people care about one person’s political opinion over others’ political opinions.

Can someone explain this to me without calling all evangelicals lobotomized sheep?

Esthier on September 20, 2007 at 2:00 PM

There’s a reason we don’t have a Pope. Many people that don’t understand/don’t want to understand/think they do understand are extremely frustrated that we don’t have a single person, with a silly hat, that they can point to. Dobson has no more legitimate authority than any individual personally gives him.

TBinSTL on September 20, 2007 at 2:01 PM

When he starts using his religious position to pick out candidates by name, then he’s overstepped his bounds…
Hollowpoint on September 20, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Actually it wouldn’t be be so bad if Dobson had done that. A preacher has just as much right as anyone else to express a political opinion.

But that’s NOT what Dobson is doing. He is (apparently as a tax dodge) explicitly REFUSING to directly and honestly endorse any individual politician.

Instead, Dobson has publically (albeit back-handedly) proclaimed that he reviles all the leading Republican candidates. And I’m going out on a limb and assuming he’s not all that crazy about any of the Democrat candidates either.

So basically Dobson is just screeching that one sinner after another has failed to meet his ever-so-very lofty standard of righteousness. What does that leave? I suppose we are now supposed to sit around and try to puzzle out who among us Dobson DOESN’T think is a witch….

Well, sorry, but I’m just not in the mood to play that particular game. And frankly it’s kinda hard to see how that’s a good way for a so-called “evangelical” to reach out and show all of us lost sinners the way, the truth and the light.

If the guy has something to say, then he should have the guts to come out and SAY it. Otherwise, he’s not really Testifying very well is he?

logis on September 20, 2007 at 2:02 PM

I could give a flying crap what Dobson says.

Go pound sand, Dobson!

georgej on September 20, 2007 at 2:08 PM

James Dobson’s personal and God fearing opinion is important to me and most true evangelicals.

apostle53 on September 20, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Do any of you ever get the impression that people who brag about fearing god are doing so as a veiled threat?

“I fear the Lord! (And you should too, or else!)”

Loundry on September 20, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Mcguyver:

Not understanding the “static” and “special memo” remarks. Something I said?

see-dubya on September 20, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Well, sorry, but I’m just not in the mood to play that particular game. And frankly it’s kinda hard to see how that’s a good way for a so-called “evangelical” to reach out and show all of us lost sinners the way, the truth and the light.

Again, I don’t get it here. Why would you even bother playing the game ever? Who cares which candidate he likes?

Are there really people out their holding their breath until he picks someone?

Esthier on September 20, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Not understanding the “static” and “special memo” remarks. Something I said?

see-dubya on September 20, 2007 at 2:09 PM

That explains a lot.

Mcguyver on September 20, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Could you be a little more vague on Dobson’s constitutional right to free speech?

Mcguyver on September 20, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Could you please review FEC and tax code as it relates to non-profit, tax-exempt organizations and political activity?

Of course he has a right to free speech, but this was clearly not the private e-mail he claims it to be. In effect it’s his organization endorsing certain candidates by the process of elimination.

Hollowpoint on September 20, 2007 at 2:18 PM

P.S. Special memo to Hollowpoint and see-dubya.

Mcguyver on September 20, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Read, then comment. You’ll notice that I questioned how much influence Dobson really has.

Hollowpoint on September 20, 2007 at 2:21 PM

And Dobson not backing Fred(!) is a bad thing…how?!

E. M. on September 20, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Oh, okay, it was just passive-aggressive whining, then. Figured.

see-dubya on September 20, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Read, then comment. You’ll notice that I questioned how much influence Dobson really has.

Hollowpoint on September 20, 2007 at 2:21 PM

You just proved my point.

Mcguyver on September 20, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Of course he has a right to free speech, but this was clearly not the private e-mail he claims it to be. In effect it’s his organization endorsing certain candidates by the process of elimination.

Hollowpoint on September 20, 2007 at 2:18 PM

So are you saying that Dobson, when not representing his organization, has no right to public free speech on this matter?

Esthier on September 20, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Could you please review FEC and tax code as it relates to non-profit, tax-exempt organizations and political activity?
Hollowpoint on September 20, 2007 at 2:18 PM

That would be your job, since you’re the one trying to imply he is over stepping his bounds.

Dobson mentioned a IRS lawsuit in which he was vindicated.

I’m sorry, what was your point?

Mcguyver on September 20, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Are there really people out their holding their breath until [Dobson] picks someone?
Esthier on September 20, 2007 at 2:11 PM

There may well be a few, but I would assume that number is shrinking right now.

If God really told Dobson that someone like Kucinich or Hunter was his favorite candidate, and then Dobson came out and went to the wall for him, then he could at least pretend that there was some sort of religious basis for his actions.

But this playing the tax code and hedging his bets based on the latest polls? Not so much.

Religion has nothing more to do with Dobson’s politics than comedy has to do with Rosy O’donnell’s latest outburst. That may be how they GOT notoriety in the first place, but now it’s gone to their heads – and that kind of ego trip leaves room for nothing else.

logis on September 20, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Religion has nothing more to do with Dobson’s politics than comedy has to do with Rosy O’donnell’s latest outburst.

logis on September 20, 2007 at 2:33 PM

I honestly wouldn’t know, as I haven’t listened to him since high school, when a short program of his would run while I was getting ready in the morning.

Even still, I just don’t see what difference it makes in regards to his email.

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you), then Focus on the Family should have issues with him, but I don’t see how it should effect his ability to give his opinion when he does so separate from the organization.

Esthier on September 20, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Oh, okay, it was just passive-aggressive whining, then. Figured.

see-dubya on September 20, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Comment with no reference to anything or anybody is deemed irrelevant.

Mcguyver on September 20, 2007 at 2:47 PM

So are you saying that Dobson, when not representing his organization, has no right to public free speech on this matter?

Esthier on September 20, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Have I been that unclear? For that matter, was the original post? Of course he has the right to free speech, but it seems pretty bloody obvious that this wasn’t a “private e-mail” that was “leaked”.

It certainly appears that he’s speaking for his organization, and even if he’s not technically in violation of FEC statute he’s skating pretty close to the line.

Hollowpoint on September 20, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Won’t be the first time (or second or third or fourth etc) that I don’t take my marching orders from Dobson.

tickleddragon on September 20, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Comment with no reference to anything or anybody is deemed irrelevant.

Mcguyver on September 20, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Which is obviously why you took the time and trouble to respond to it.

Idiot.

Centerfire on September 20, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Dobson Schmobson…. I’m Catholic…… He doesn’t like me anyway. At the risk of irritating the Mitten crowd, yeah, Dobson’s non support of Fred does make Fred look better. I’m still holding out for that Hunter/ Steele ticket….. I think I have a good chance of winning Powerball, too.

MNDavenotPC on September 20, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Idiot.
Centerfire on September 20, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Another successful attempt on my part, at flushing out, what your three fingers are pointing at.

Mcguyver on September 20, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2