I will supply the Nietzschean, Machiavellian, and even Platonic gloss: James Dobson seems to think he can afford to be cavalier with the wellbeing of the United States because Earth is not his home. He’s like a rock star who trashes his hotel room; he thinks he has many mansions and a valet has gone to prepare a place for him.

Kralizec on October 10, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Or the problem could be Hegelian and Dobson feels his choice is the the only viable solution to that problem. It certainly seemed to play out that way with Ford-Carter-Reagan.

I don’t know why you’re so opposed to Hillary anyway. She should be your dream candidate. She’s a woman obsessed with destroying Christian fundamentalism, just like Rand and her disciples. Except Hillary’s going to do something about it, as opposed to endlessly kvetching like Objectivists.

Am I in the right place?

I don’t understand your need to vilify him.

ThackerAgency on October 9, 2007 at 11:38 PM

However little I may respect some of the Republicans’ Presidential candidates, I think the prospects for the survival of the American regime are better under most any of them–except perhaps John McCain–than under Hillary Clinton. A desire to withhold one’s vote from “the lesser of two evils,” even at the expense of helping a leftist candidate, may stem partly from an opinion that punishing the Republicans now will improve their Presidential candidates in future elections. However, in this time, it seems any election may be the Americans’ last election or last free one. Thus, Dobson’s publicly withholding his vote may be evidence that he has learned to love to punish more than to love the wellbeing of the United States.

At any rate, AllahPundit’s desire to criticize James Dobson seems to stem from an opinion that his public statements are likely to make the outcome of the American Presidential election worse rather than better. It may stem from a quite reasonable fear for the continued existence of the United States. I will supply the Nietzschean, Machiavellian, and even Platonic gloss: James Dobson seems to think he can afford to be cavalier with the wellbeing of the United States because Earth is not his home. He’s like a rock star who trashes his hotel room; he thinks he has many mansions and a valet has gone to prepare a place for him.

sabbott on October 10, 2007 at 9:55 AM: I’m a Christian and a conservative

So if I follow this logic to it’s conclusion, the rest of the rest of this statement would go like this

“… but I’d rather vote (or not vote) for the U.S. to go up in flames with the Billary at the helm in the White House, than to vote for some perfect candidate that meet 100% of my expectations or passes the the right litmus test.”

So let’s all just act like children and when things don’t work out our way, “just take all of our toys and go home”.

Here’s a thought… Isn’t it better to get at least some of your message out, than none at all? Things just didn’t get this way over night, it was a gradual, but continual chipping away that got us here. And wishing for a Billary win just because it will energize the base, is as asinine as the tactics that are employed by the poverty pimps like Rev. Jackson and Sharpton.

Someone tell James Dobson that Jesus is not running for president.

For me, that’s exactly right. We’re all still flawed, sinful human beings. The question is, who is the person best suited to do well and good by this country?

angryoldfatman on October 10, 2007 at 9:27 AM

Exactly. Wish this were more widely understood.

King of the Britons on October 10, 2007 at 7:42 AM

can’t argue with you there. i’m not ashamed of the fact that god doesn’t play a role in my politics, and no one should necessarily have to compromise their stance on the matter.

the question is, if god voters were to leave the republican party, and start their own…who would they bring to the table? what other constituencies would be brought in? god voters, without the support of the hawks and the suits, could not have won in 2000 and 2004. How does Dr. Dobson plan on making any sort of electoral impact without those constituencies?

If anything, Dr. Dobson’s opening lies in immigration. The suits and the hawks tend to differ on that issue, and positioning that as a wedge and pushing more protectionist trade policies, dobson could offer hawks and social cons a republican party minus the suits.

the suits could then try and court bill clintonesque free trade democrats and maybe even steer those folks in a more fiscally responsible direction. If they can convince the entitlement folks that less dividend and capital gains taxes DOES increase revenue…and that a simpler tax code would further increase revenue (maybe even huckabee’s “prostitutes and drug dealers” fairtax)…BAM, a new 2 party system.

Though not religious, I respect Dobson, and appreciate his influence up until now. But I resent his kamikaze tactic, and worry it will end up with our defeat in ’08.

Hannity did a good job last night, I thought.

The abortion debate will be resolved with technology. Who can look at one of those 3d pictures of the womb with a baby and think that’s not a human?

Liberals could. If the humanity of the unborn is inconvenient to their established narrative, they merely need to will it out of existence and….voila…not human! Problem solved.

Nosferightu on October 10, 2007 at 1:22 AM

They even go so far as to tell the truth about an unborn child’s humanity in order to hide the truth about an unborn child’s humanity!

Example: They tell young people that ultrasounds (a technology that has had no side effects for over thirty years) can hurt the unborn in order to keep them from viewing the unborn child’s obvious humanity so they can continue killing the unborn!

The abortion activists rely on the cognitive dissonance brought on by emotional manipulation to continue their evil. Freud and Bernays would be amazed to see their work used so successfully.

ernesto on October 10, 2007 at 7:18 AM

Of course you can. However, for Christians, God comes before politics. So by compromising what one believes is God’s will for us, in order to win an election is not a principled stance. The Republican party once, at least more so than now, actually stood for most of the values that Christians hold dear and could count on Christian votes. That is becoming less and less so and Christians are now saying (and where this happens is an individual decision), “This party no longer represents what I believe in.” That many on this blog feel that politics are more important than God or principle speaks loudly about the current Republican party and “conservative” politics.

King of the Britons on October 10, 2007 at 7:02 AM

we could “give up on god” tomorrow…and by representing a stronger defense, a smaller government, and a deregulated free market economy…still be conservatives

I hate one issue voting! It’s so empty of any intellectual effort.

urbancenturion on October 10, 2007 at 12:21 AM

Well said centurion. Allah – What arrogance! I guess to you “political progrss” is worth one’s soul. That being the case – It truly doesn’t matter one bit who is elected. Because when Conservatives give up on God, give up on small government, and become that which they despise (which this board truly has done), there becomes only one political party.

Limerick on October 10, 2007 at 1:12 AM
LoL. More funny shugah.

urbancenturion on October 10, 2007 at 12:21 AM
ummmm …
Here’s a message from Jesus: Get over yourself.
Seriously.
Think about it.

Oh, and from one conservative Christian to you others who claim Christ on here, nice job attacking a fellow believer with the belittling comments. Last I checked we were to bear with one another, even if we don’t agree with each other on some things. Way to build unity in the body in front of these non-believers. I’m sure Christ would be proud of your pontificating.

I agree with Connie — we push for the candidate who best represents our ideals, right up until the general election. In the general we vote for the candidate who’s closest (on balance) to our ideals, knowing that any other action will at best be meaningless and at worst help the opposition.

The abortion debate will be resolved with technology. Who can look at one of those 3d pictures of the womb with a baby and think that’s not a human?

Liberals could. If the humanity of the unborn is inconvenient to their established narrative, they merely need to will it out of existence and….voila…not human! Problem solved.

Regarding Dobson and the right-wing, fundamentalist Christians (which I would certainly be considered one of)…stay focused on appointing the right judges. If we can return the abortion debate to the state legislatures (instead of SCOTUS) and just let the chips fall where they may, the issue will take care of itself. It won’t be an outright ban in most states, but it will be a compromise and probably more restrictive than Roe v. Wade allows.

I have no respect for anyone who is willing to lose everything so that they won’t have to compromise on a single issue.