Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on July 20, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“I never thought I would hear myself saying this… While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2
I have no problem with Mr. Dobson personally. And honestly, he could endorse Elmer Fudd, and that’s his right. The problem I have though is with the whole endorsement line-of-thinking – Dobson’s vote is no less or no more important than mine (and the same goes for all these other endorsers out there). I think it’s grand for someone to say ‘hey, vote for Fudd because he’ll catch the wascally wabbit,’ but that’s different from saying ‘I’m voting for Fudd, so you should too.’ If I got in front of a tv camera to tell everyone that I’m voting for Fudd, it would go over like a lead balloon. I’m not influential. Dobson is influential, however, and has the power to influence people to vote for a candidate that people might not have voted for (because they don’t actually like the candidate, but they like Dobson).
To clarify a few things, I used Dobson here as an example because he’s the topic at hand, but I feel this way about all these celebrity endorsements. Us regular people have enough to digest when choosing a candidate, and it’s very arrogent of famous people to think their opinions (and voting tendencies) matter that much to try and sway the rest of us.
Also, I used Elmer Fudd for entertainment purposes only. That, and I love me some Looney Tunes. And, if this was less than coherent, I apologize. Sleep deprivation is not my friend.
Anna on July 21, 2008 at 8:40 AM
A tax and spend liberal who just happens to believe in Jesus and is pro-life?
If Obama was pro-life and supported the war in Iraq would you support him?
RobertInAustin on July 21, 2008 at 8:43 AM
While I understand and sympathize with the angst he’s gone through about supporting McCain I’m really sick of people like him dominating the GOP. He does a pretty good job with some family matters (I’m thinking of his book for parents on raising kids, not perfect but not too shabby), but ultimately I could care less what Dobson’s views are on politics.
Has anyone here actually proposed legislation to this effect or are you playing the martyr routine one sees so frequently from some partisan Evangies when others disagree with them? Nobody here I’ve seen has said that Dobson doesn’t have the right to express his political opinions. Nope, instead many don’t give a damn what they are and are tired of hearing him.
Unless you are making the claim that Dobson is synonymous with Christianity, that’s hardly what I’ve seen here. Not everyone is going to like or agree with everybody else, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. As much influence as the Religious Right has exercised in US politics over the past 30 years, to hear this persistent whining from them when others disagree is very annoying. Get down off the Cross, the deed was done 2 millenia ago!
JohnAGJ on July 21, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Anna,
I don’t think there are too many “endorsers” who would think that the mere mention of an endorsement is sufficient to persuade the masses. I think an endorsement is kind of an announcement saying, “I support ______, here is why, & you’ll be seeing me campaigning for him/her”.
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Yes, they have!
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Oh really? Whom, exactly? Are we talking about someone excercising THEIR opinions about Dobson, which has no legal or constitutional effect whatsoever, or someone actually proposing legislation to take away Dobson’s rights? If it’s the latter, please do point it out because as much as I object to the man I would ally with him to safeguard the rights we hold and cherish in common.
JohnAGJ on July 21, 2008 at 8:57 AM
As the sites’(probable) most rabid CCR (Christian/ Conservative/Republican), I can tell you that we don’t follow anyone except God. I don’t care what Dobson says. Neither do 20 million of my closest CCR friends. We pray about who to vote for.
Just like I support Romney (even though he is a Mormon), we all have our own opinions. The peeps who voted for Huck did it ONLY because he is a Christian. He’s liberal in almost every other way.
I don’t know anyone who chose Mc from the pack. We’re just kind of stuck with him now and most of us will only get excited if he picks Romney as vp.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on July 21, 2008 at 8:57 AM
To correct you, sir, BLACKBIRD, hindmost, ThackerAngency at 12:06, winemkr, claypigeon all said or strongly implied that religious people don’t have the right to speak publicly about politics.
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM
I understand exactly where Dobson is coming from. I’ve gone through the same metamorphosis during this campaign. I’m now enthusiastically asking folks to hold their nose! Vote McCain! A good prop for us McCainiacs would be a clothes pin to clip on folks noses.
I only regret that folks like Dobson and Schlafly didn’t do more to help the Duncan Hunter campaign. They just left him out there to dangle in the wind. Both could have helped his campaign considerably. They both have lost credibility and need to answer for this shortfall. And let us know what they plan to do to offset this blunder on their part. If Hunter had at least made a much better showing in the primaries, he could have pulled the GOP back to a more conservative position. Both Dobson and Schlafly could have made that happen. My opinion. DD
Darvin Dowdy on July 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM
I couldn’t agree more! Courtesy of our state constitutions…
Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.
Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered thisgreat land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…
Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the Stat e of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…
California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the St ate of California, grateful to Al mighty God for our freedom…
Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe…
Connecticut 1818, Preamble The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.
Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution…
Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection a ndguidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…
Hawaii 1959, Preamble We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance … Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependenc e on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties…
Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity … And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty…
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We… the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of H is Providence, an opportunity and devoutly implor ing His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble Le. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness. Establish this Constitution…
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish thisConstitution.
Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom. Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution…
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty.
New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those…
North Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain…
Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common…
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, inorde r to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance…
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing…
South Carolina, 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties.
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…
Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man.
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginiareaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God .
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility…
Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution.
dominigan on July 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Protestants (like me) reject papal authority, yet many of them await to hear from radio show hosts about whom to vote for.
Akzed on July 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM
So you won’t get excited if McCain picks someone who’s actually governed as a conservative, like Jindal or Palin?
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Introducing the John McCain nose plugs!
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Just as the liberal media has repeated the church/state separation myth enough times for even conservatives to believe it, AP has repeated the Dobson-desperate-for-attention myth enough times for many HAers to believe it.
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 9:10 AM
I know you’re all heated up about Palin, young as she is, (just teasing you there, jgapinoy) but it’s a little bit of a stretch to laud her “governing as a conservative” when she has only served two years as governor. Before that, she was a two-term mayor of Wasilla.
BigD on July 21, 2008 at 9:15 AM
I know you’re all heated up about Palin, young as she is, (just teasing you there, jgapinoy) but it’s a little bit of a stretch to laud her “governing as a conservative” when she has only served two years as governor. Before that, she was a two-term mayor of Wasilla.
Sooo, technically, she’s more qualified to be President than Obama? Cool.
marklmail on July 21, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Absolutely. What I find chilling is how many moderates here are starting to display many of liberal attributes that we would point out… history revision, shouting down / bullying others, using emotional instead of logical arguments, etc.
dominigan on July 21, 2008 at 9:29 AM
I’d say she has a lot more experience governing as a conservative than Mitt.
And she has a lot more experience governing than BO.
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Dobson didn’t get in trouble before for not endorsing McCain, since there were millions of others within the Republican Party angry with what Maverick has done over the years. Where he really forfeited his credibility this election cycle was when he came out and blasted Fred Thompson for not being Christian enough, just prior to Fred’s formal announcement he was getting into the race.
The force of that attack, along with questioning Thompson’s religion, showed an authoritarian streak in Dobson that wanted to not only tell Republicans who to vote for, but to tell them who was and who wasn’t a good Christian. Acting that that is a sure way to marginalize any religious leader in the political arena, and James is going to have too spend the next several years trying to rebuild his reputation.
jon1979 on July 21, 2008 at 9:31 AM
I was just mentioning at 9:10 a couple of myths repeated often enough to make even conservatives believe them. You brought up another–that Dobson said Fred isn’t Christian enough. Dobson was asked about Fred’s chances, & he said he thought that a lot of evangelicals wouldn’t consider Fred to be Christian enough.
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 9:36 AM
…as a FredHead, I was annoyed at that comment.
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 9:37 AM
If you are going to get your impression of Dr. James Dobson from the Drive Bys, then you will continue to be misinformed! He is NOT a radio “preacher”! He is a Dr. of Psychiatry. He combines his love of Jesus Christ with his understanding of Psychology and assists people with this knowledge in helpful ways on a daily basis on his radio show.
I don’t listen to him often but find him to be a kind and loving individual and the person portrayed in the lamestream press is not the true Dobson.
Again, why the anti-Christian bias on this blog? We are mostly conservatives who are simply having a very difficult time with John McCain because of his lack of conservative voting record! Slamming our faith is not acceptable dialog in America!
sabbott on July 21, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Dobson’s radio show and writings are largely unknown by infidels, so all they know about him are his public remarks picked up by news outlets. When e.g. he publicly doubts Fred T’s Christianity, it brings him under fire. When he plays games with endorsing McCain -given that not doing so could suppress the conservative vote- thoughtful people get upset.
So if all some people see or hear from him are poorly considered remarks far removed from his field of expertise, they have a right to wonder WTF he’s talking about, and express their concern.
Akzed on July 21, 2008 at 9:56 AM
You either vote for an unqualified Marxist or you vote for his opponent. Simple….
adamsmith on July 21, 2008 at 10:01 AM
I just refuted that 9:36AM
You’ve never been undecided or hesitant?
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 10:02 AM
You’ve never been undecided or hesitant?jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Sure, but millions of people are not influenced by my equivocation.
Akzed on July 21, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Sorry, that should have been quote, not strike.
Akzed on July 21, 2008 at 10:11 AM
For the few of you wanting to hear “from the horse’s mouth”–without the media filter–exactly what Dobson is saying about McCain & BO, go to family.org & click “listen to the broadcast”.
I’d guess Dobson only does 3 or 4% of his shows about politics, so it’s an uncommon opportunity.
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Where did Washington or Lincoln ever say or wtite anything about abortion or homosexuality?
jim m on July 21, 2008 at 10:24 AM
It would have been political suicide speak in favor of abortion or homosexual rights in those days–everyone knew they were wrong.
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Wow. I’m truly impressed. You went from hearing a possible endorsement of one political candidate and went straight to mullahs and wanting more separation between our government and religion as though an endorsement implies any linkage between the two other than highlighting the obvious fact that like-minded people often vote in blocks.
Wow.
I’ll answer your question. No, I don’t want Obama as president. Then ask me if I want McCain as president. The answer would again be no.
My ideal, fantasy situation would be that somehow they’re both disqualified as soon as possible.
Well, we’d be left alone if we’d just tow the party line and vote for the R. I mean who do we think we are anyway? Don’t we know that if we don’t vote for McCain that we’re voting for Obama by default?
I have a problem with that comment.
Obviously many, many people have used religion as nothing more than a tool to make themselves rich, and there’s something wrong with that; however, there’s nothing wrong with being rich. Conservatives of all people seem to understand this, or so I thought.
So if there’s nothing wrong with being rich, then why do some of you rail out against preachers who are successful? Do they not have the right to make money? These aren’t Catholic priests who have taken a vow of poverty. Making money isn’t against our religion. So long as the money isn’t being earn fraudulently, what’s the problem?
Silly, Dale. If us “Religio-Nutbags” had any serious influence on the political process, McCain wouldn’t be the Republican nominee.
And seriously, what’s your beef here anyway? McCain is as in the middle as you can get and still be a Republican. This is your chance to shine, Dale. This is your moderate Republican.
It may be arrogant, but it’s also accurate.
BS.
You believe that the Founding Fathers decided to only allow religion to be protected if it’s practiced behind closed doors at home?
So, the First Amendment? That’s just meaningless when applied to religious speech?
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 10:40 AM
I swear by the constitution of the United States that was signed in the year of Lord 1776 that those state constitutions are unconstitutional based upon constitutional grounds.
RobertInAustin on July 21, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I don’t know anyone who would do that.
What’s more likely is that protestants, annoyed by McCain’s record, are uneasy about voting for him, thinking it’s the wrong decision. With Dobson saying he will vote for him, it could make them more comfortable with the idea and push them towards it.
It was his worst moment. Even though he himself did not question Fred’s Christianity, the statement itself did. He shouldn’t have said it and probably shouldn’t have involved himself too much in this election until he’d decided on a candidate.
The wavering is understandable, but it would have been better if he’d kept the wavering private.
That said, I believe he’s a good man who’s doing what he feels is best. I don’t think he’s the villain he’s been painted as.
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Even more so, “the year of our Lord.”
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM
And seriously, what’s your beef here anyway? McCain is as in the middle as you can get and still be a Republican. This is your chance to shine, Dale. This is your moderate Republican.
The problem is, I don’t think McCain is a “moderate” Republican at all; I think he’s a Rightleaning Democrat!
But that is beside the point; you’ve apparantly violated some unwritten rule on lengthy posts, that I violated earlier, unbeknownst to me, and was done to me, I unfortunately now have to petition Capt Ed to “ban” you from Hot Air!
Sorry, for a “rational” explaination, see “jailbones”!
Yeah, right…
Dale in Atlanta on July 21, 2008 at 10:53 AM
You are correct, I was typing to fast.
It seems to me that our founding fathers used a lot of religious language in secular documents to teach that they were not religious.
It is very simple, America wasn’t going to be England with its own version of the Anglican Church. I was never taught this in public schools, it was later I discovered it.
RobertInAustin on July 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Just curious. Who would be your candidate?
I seem to do that a lot when I’m late to a post. I just hate to post without reading all the others, then naturally, I find something to respond to as well.
But you’re right. We should be banned. Maybe jailbones will forgive us.
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I went to a Christian school until junior high. Everything was taught from a Christian perspective, especially how America was founded.
And yeah, it was so simple. England literally had a state church. America wanted no part in that. Some how these days people think it means all religion despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM
That reminds readers of the HotAir derision loaded upon Hugh Hewitt during the primary AND THEREAFTER. To only know someone by “reputation” is to NOT know someone. Hewitt’s radio program is one of the most interesting with the national profile because he interviews multiple people each show rather than having his brief daily format that loops each segment, same ol’ same ol for several hours each day.
maverick muse on July 21, 2008 at 11:32 AM
When it was a question of the Republican primary, Dobson probably hesitated about endorsing McCain, since Huckabee was much more overt about his religious convictions, although Dobson probably had some trouble with Huckabee’s releasing criminals who later raped or killed other victims, and Romney’s Mormonism.
Now that the choice is between McCain and Obama, who has a more extreme pro-abortion position than most Democrats, Dobson probably feels compelled to endorse McCain in order to avoid the moral disaster (from a Christian point of view) that an Obama Presidency would bring.
Steve Z on July 21, 2008 at 11:47 AM
James Dobson is not a “preacher” he is a clincal professor of pediatrics with a ph.d in child development and a practicing marriage, family and child counselor—who has founded an organization to promote the well-being of the traditional family. His interest in politics stem from his interest in the health of the family. He has wrote numerous best-selling books on the subject, received numerous awards and has served on several government councils including (from his website) :
He also happens to be an evangelical Christian who has 220 million radio listeners.
It has been several years since I have caught his broadcast and I am certainly not on tender-hooks waiting to hear his presidential endorsement, but it is disappointing to see another vapid and all too predictable accusation of attention-seeking toward Mr. Dobson by Allahpundit which seems to be based on nothing more than a reflexive dislike of Christianity. In fact the fixation on accusing Dobson of attention-seeking is becoming a little creepy. But that’s just me
Now for a real “attention-seeker”
John McCain wants to bring British-style political grillings to Capitol Hill.
By Christopher Hitchens
Talking Politics: What are they really saying? by Christopher Hitchens
-The Weekly Standard July 07, 2008
Farewell to a Provincial Redneck: Jesse Helms’ stranglehold on U.S. foreign policy was a national embarrassment. By Christopher Hitchens
-Slate July 07, 2008
Christopher Hitchens’ open letter to George Bush as outgoing President visits the UK
-The Mirror UK June 16, 2008 by Christopher Hitchens
Etc. etc. ad nauseum
What are his credentials again?
Renae on July 21, 2008 at 11:47 AM
He’s an author. You’re citing his work.
Come on. All he did was post Dobson’s quote. He didn’t even comment on it.
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Our Founding Principles included Classical education, thorough historical perspective, and appreciation for all of the various populations who took the trouble to make the pilgrimage to “The New World” for “a better life” that first required the sacrifice of EVERYTHING one had and then the cooperative spirit and effort to survive with nature.
That we know how to appreciate the good that is available from all sources is the exact American quality that the ACLU is determined to extinguish and make extinct in order to ensure the demise of our government, culture, civilization, and people. APPRECIATION is no longer understood since PC permeated our world, and corrupted appreciation to become submission to revision. Public Educator Unions with the ACLU and activist revisionist Judges have seen to the blinding of America. What to do?
1. Evict PC from one’s own realm–best defense, good offense.
2. Study PC tactics and steadily; bit by bit undo them.
3. Live what you preach, appreciation for our Founding Principles.
4. Support the cooperative spirit in your community that aids survival. Careful with the elitist purism, as it suffers ’shoot yourself in the foot’ syndrome.
5. Remain the fittest. Stay atop the situation.
maverick muse on July 21, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Washington & Lincoln were both for
–low taxes
–prayer & Bible reading in school
–laws against abortion
–strong national defense
–limited gov’t
–the right to bear arms,
as well as being against homosexuality.
They would be called Religious Right today.
They would be called “Nut” by you.
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Again, jgapinoy, please prove your statements about abortion or homosexuality other than “everyone knew they were wrong”, especially given the following history:
From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced..
jim m on July 21, 2008 at 12:00 PM
“A tax and spend liberal who just happens to believe in Jesus and is pro-life?”
RobertInAustin on July 21, 2008 at 8:43 AM
No, Robert…a common-sense leader who made government actually work for a change.
AND…he HAPPENS to believe in Jesus and is pro-life.
If you had a leader who has PROVEN he can make government run efficiently while still believing in Jesus Christ and STILL maintaining an intense loathing of abortion, would you vote for him/her?
Obviously not…you’d go for the Grover Norquist types that are only concerned about their wallet.
Sounds to me like it would be YOU who would vote for a Democrat over a Republican…if the issue was your hard-earned pay and nothing else.
Al-Ozarka on July 21, 2008 at 12:24 PM
He is an author whose biggest claim to fame is his bloated, childish rant against Christians I mean religion. I have absolutely no problem with Mr. Hitchens offering his political opinion in his works. He has a perfect right to do so and I even agree with many of his foreign policy opinions. I just get tired of the venerated “Hitch” posts and the insulting “Dobson” posts as if by mere virtue of being an evangelical Christian Dobson is over-stepping his bounds by commenting on politics.
No, you are right, he did not comment on the post this time, except for the cute little “attention everyone,” addition under the image on the main page. But frankly he didn’t need to.
” Whether he’s doing that out of loyalty to the GOP, genuine concern over a pro-choice candidate peeling away Christian voters, or just the usual craving for attention, I leave to you to decide.”
or how about
“His eleventh-hour cavalry charge for Huckabee went nowhere so it’s time for the next headline-grabbing ploy … “
and then there is
“One final bleat for attention, a finger in the eye of the party that’s about to cross him…”
But, hey maybe I’m reading something into his posts that aren’t there, if so I apologize. As a rule I really enjoy Allah’s post—just not the Dobson ones.
Renae on July 21, 2008 at 12:36 PM
“somehow they’re both disqualified as soon as possible.” is indeed, a fantasy.
For those of us who operate in the land of reality, we are intending on being counted in one of two categories. And this happens to be “D” or “R”.
If you want to live in reality, you might want to choose between the two, as all of the rest of us are going to be doing. If Obama wins, then I don’t want to see you complaining about our situation, when you had an opportunity to do something about it, and you didn’t.
.
Yes. You are helping Obama to become the next president if you don’t participate in the US elections. You see, as I might have stated earlier, millions of people are going to vote for the “D” or the “R” and only one of the two is going to win. The other will loose. I don’t want the “D” to win. and others here, seem to want the “D” to win this time so that they might possibly have a better “R” next time. And of course, all of the democrats and liberals in this country also want the “D” to win this time.
I would not want to align myself with the democrats on this issue. If a supposed conservative wants to join in with the democrats, then I suggest that they make this move permanent. I only speak for myself, and a few might agree with me that we don’t want you back. Stay there and go on helping the democrat win in all the other elections, if you like doing this so much.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Yeah, that’s why I called it my fantasy.
And if McCain wins am I allowed to complain even if I help him win?
I’m online, talking to an anonymous screen name. Maybe reality holds no interest for me. McCain certainly doesn’t. He’s been attacking conservatives for years now and has often been a regular feature of conservative outrage on websites like this one that entire time.
I’d, respectfully, suggest that you’re the one not living in reality if you think this is an easy decision for people here. There’s an entire website devoted to the concept that conservatives will have to get hammered before going to the polls (http://getdrunkandvote4mccain.com/).
And what has McCain done to make this any easy for us?
If he can’t bring us together, that’s on him. He’s the Republican nominee. If he can’t even bring Republicans together, how will he ever be able to bring this country together?
I’m sorry, but that’s just vindictive and really unwise. See, in every election, there are people who switch. We have many former Democrats in our ranks now, either because they’ve seen the light or simply don’t like the way their party evolved.
If you can’t get over the fact that some people change their minds, then that’s your problem, not theirs.
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Renae on July 21, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Renae:
Other popular bloggers have the same issue. Glenn Reynolds, in particular.
Headline: GOOD NEWS FOR FRED THOMPSON: James Dobson doesn’t like him. That’s gotta be worth, what, five percent?
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/009593.php
BigD on July 21, 2008 at 1:03 PM
I get your sentiment. It’s easy to feel unwelcome here during a Christian topic, especially considering that Allah is self-described atheist.
I just think you’re being a little sensitive here.
Hitchen’s books are mostly anti-religion, but he’s posted on politics for a long time.
Dobson, on the other hand, runs a family organization that stays out of politics. He only dips into politics as a means to influence voters, the way most celebrities endorse.
And, while a good man, Dobson has earned some of the attention-seeking criticism. There’s no reason for him to announce that he may vote for McCain other than to possibly remind McCain who he needs to suck up to.
Had Dobson only spoken after making his decision, either in the primary or afterwards as a show of party loyalty, I doubt the criticism against him would be as high as it is.
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 1:09 PM
I think my point about Dobson is that he should get to express his point of view without being attacked because he’s a Christian! If Dobson were just some radio Psycologist with a view on the election, I doubt that he would receive the flack but since he’s a Christian it seems to me that it’s open season on him only because he’s a Christian. Since when did being a Christian become a crime in the USA? Since when did it become illegal for professing Christians to express our viewpoint on any matter in the USA? If you disagree with us fine, but stop attacking us because of who we are! If we were Jewish or Muslim people would claim that these statements are “hate crimes” but since we are just Christians, everything and anything goes…
sabbott on July 21, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Perhaps it is unfair to cite Hitchen’s essays, but he is not above a few “headline grabbing ploys” himself:
and
Newsweek, MSNBC Rely on Atheist Critic to Discuss Mother Teresa’s Spiritual Troubles
and this
not that i didn’t appreciate the gesture ;)
Renae on July 21, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Dobson is often asked for his opinion, and I doubt he is the only one who is having a tough time deciding who he will support. Myself–to update a primary comment by Thomas Sowell– “the only person who could make me vote for John McCain is Barack Obama.”
As for being oversensitive, perhaps you are right, after all if I want to visit an ‘avowed atheists’ blog I should expect some antagonism toward Christians.
Renae on July 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM
I certainly don’t disagree with any of that, but to announce publicly that you may or may not vote for the R sounds so much like he’s waiting for McCain to pander to him.
If I could, I’d personally advise him to not answer questions from people who ask him questions when he hasn’t made his decision yet.
Besides, there was that one “private” email, which no one asked for.
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 1:34 PM
So you believe that Dobson is motivated by a desire to be personally pandered to by John McCain? I am just not that cynical toward Mr. Dobson. Friendly question. What evidence of meglomania leads you to that conclusion?
Renae on July 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Perhaps Mr. Dobson is genuinely concerned about this election and it’s potential to impact the American family especially with looming Supreme Court vacancies. Perhaps he is hoping that if pro-family advocates and yes, Christians like himself publically voice concern about McCain’s wishy-washiness, McCain will feel it is expediate to move further right on these issues. Other conservatives whose concerns include border security, terrorist p.o.w. policies and the possibility of draconian measures based on global-warming hysteria, have not exactly rallied around the R flag when it comes to supporting the maverick.
Renae on July 21, 2008 at 2:06 PM
I didn’t say that. I said that it looks that way. I can’t say for certain either way.
Megalomania is a little bit of an overstatement. Though there are prime examples where he should have just kept his mouth shut.
A few notables:
If McCain wins the nomination, I’m sitting out.
His litmus test for candidates.
The aforementioned “private” email.
His railing against Rudy.
And all the while making similar statements about what candidates needed to do to get on his good side, as though it was necessary to be on his good side in order to win.
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 2:14 PM
In case you were sleeping…..
* Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).
* He supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07).
* He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 08/30/02).
* He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003) (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Arkansas New Bureau 03/01/01).
* He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).
* He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003 (Arkansas News Bureau 11/21/03).
* In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).
By the end of his ten-year tenure, Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes according to Americans for Tax Reform (01/07/07), garnering a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute. While he is on record supporting making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he joined Democrats in criticizing the Republican Party for tilting its tax policies “toward the people at the top end of the economic scale” (Washington Examiner 09/13/06), even though objective evidence demonstrates that the Bush tax cuts have actually shifted the tax burden to higher income taxpayer.
Finally, Governor Huckabee opposed further tax cuts at a 2005 gathering of Iowa conservatives (AP 09/17/05). On January 28, 2007, Governor Huckabee refused to pledge not to raise taxes if elected President, first on Meet the Press and then at the National Review Conservative Summit. The evidence suggests that his commitment to protecting taxpayers evidenced in his early gubernatorial years may be a thing of the past.
Under Governor Huckabee’s watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07). The number of state government workers rose 20% during his tenure (Arkansas Leader 04/15/06), and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion, according to Americans for Tax Reform. The massive increase in government spending is due in part to the number of new programs and expansion of already existing programs initiated by Governor Huckabee, including ARKids First, a multimillion-dollar government program to provide health coverage for thousands of Arkansas’ children (Arkansas News Bureau 04/13/06).
These large increases in government borrowing and spending significantly impede economic growth.
Governor Huckabee’s record on school choice is mixed. On the one hand, he fought hard to protect the rights of parents to home school their children and was a vocal proponent of charter schools (Arkansas Time 09/22/05). In 1997, he supported a proposal that would expand charter school eligibility to include public and private universities, governmental agencies, and nonprofit organizations (AP 02/12/97). He signed legislation in 1999 that allowed for as many as 12 charter schools to be established in Arkansas, an important achievement given the state’s onerous laws governing charter schools (Time 07/10/00).
On the other hand, Governor Huckabee is on record opposing the most important element of genuine school choice-voucher programs that allow poor students in failing public schools to attend private schools and inject much needed competition into a decrepit public education system-because of a concern about government control of parochial schools (Arkansas Times 09/22/05). He also called No Child Left Behind “the greatest education reform effort by the federal government in my lifetime,” (Washington Times 03/01/05) a program that stripped schools of local control and increased federal spending on education by 48% over three years (Heritage.org 11/09/06).
RobertInAustin on July 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I am not quite sure why Christians are told so often to shut up and stay home. I wonder if it comes from the liberal desire to stifle all desent. But if Christians should be silenced, why shouldn’t athiests like Allah P? After all, isn’t lack of religion as practiced by athiests, pretty much a religion?
TimothyJ on July 21, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I see a man, like myself, extremely frustrated with our GOP primary choices and our nominee. I guess I am a little slow–why should Dobson alone keep his mouth shut while other conservatives like Rush can voice concerns about McCain’s policies and how difficult it will be to vote for him? Why again should Dobson not send emails about politics? Do other conservatives “appear” to be wanting McCain to pander to them when they say they are not sure they can vote for him? The difference seems to me to be that Dobson is a Christian or what am I missing?
Renae on July 21, 2008 at 2:53 PM
You can’t compare Dobson to Rush. Dobson’s program is oriented around the family, whereas Rush’s is completely devoted to politics. It would be impossible for Rush not to say something about McCain, whereas Dobson goes out of his way to say what he thinks about McCain.
You can compare Dobson to a celebrity but not to a political pundit.
And as far as celebrities are concerned, I wouldn’t be upset if every single one of them decided to stop involving themselves in politics.
You’re asking the wrong question. For one, it wasn’t that he sent out an email, it’s that his email was questioning a candidate’s Christianity, something that shouldn’t be done period, let alone as a “private” email, which then leads to the second problem, that he pretended it was just a private email even though it’s format was one of a public appeal to those who support his organization.
Probably. But again, if you’re talking about pundits, there is a difference.
I could be wrong, but I think that Rush is also a Christian. If not, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity certainly both are, so that’s not the issue at all.
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I certainly haven’t. I can’t even say right now if I can vote for him. Then again, I’m influential. Most of my friends are either already committed to voting for the R or are liberals who don’t vote.
And he plans to do this by being wishy-washy himself?
He already stated he stay out this year if McCain one, so I don’t really see how he expect to sway McCain’s opinion. Why would McCain listen to a guy who’s promised to do everything he can to keep him from getting to the White House?
If Dobson really wants to get McCain to go more towards the Right, then he should publicly declare his support for McCain and propose some sort of working relationship. Then again, at this stage, considering his other threats, it probably wouldn’t do any good anymore.
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I feel very silly debating you, as I am usually in total agreement with your well-articulated comments. Having said that.
I am not saying that Rush and Dobson program’s are similiar, but Rush often makes social comments and Dobson as an advocate for promoting the traditional American family and it’s values is not out of line making political comments.
As far as the email it is my understanding that dr. dobson raised questions about Fred Thompson’s zeal for issues important to evangelicals, adding that Thompson doesn’t attend church regularly and won’t speak publically about his faith. So what? People question Barack Obama’s Christianity all the time. I just don’t see this as crossing some kind of church/state line political appeal or not. You may argue that it was in bad taste, but I’m not even sure that would be accurate. I would have gladly voted for Thompson by the way.
I believe you are right about Rush being a Christian, as well as Laura Ingraham, but they are certainly not held up as “Christian leaders.” Let me clarify. Dobson’s characterization as a Christian seems to be reason enough, in some circles, to limit his political speech
Renae on July 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Thanks, and honestly, we mostly agree here. I respect Dobson and grew up listening to him. I just also understand some (though certainly not all, especially some of the comments here) of the criticism being leveled at him.
Yeah, and I don’t think that’s right either, especially those who pretend as though he’s secretly a Muslim.
That’s basically all I’m saying, though I understand that you disagree.
That is better, and you’re probably right. I’m sure there are people, even here, who think no Christian (or more accurately, Christian leader) should be able to speak about politics.
I completely disagree with those people.
I only agree with those who say Dobson went a little overboard, particularly in this election (though I can’t say I was paying as much attention last time; I’d just gotten married and didn’t even get around to voting). I believe Dobson opened himself up for criticism because of the links I gave earlier, but that’s it. The rest of the hysteria against him is something else altogether.
It seems we’ve both made our points, and if you still disagree with me, that’s fine. We’ll agree again later.
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Great! And I will concede that those who are angry with Dobson’s attack on Thompson may be somewhat justified, especially since we ended up with McCain. I just am uncomfortable with the repeated demonization of Dobson and his motives on a blog I enjoy so much.
Renae on July 21, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Yeah, I have to admit that I do partially blame Dobson even though he can’t take the full blame. I was starting to get excited about Fred, and now we’ve got McCain. It’s a little depressing.
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 3:55 PM
thanks wise_man. Going to order my pair of John McCain nose plugs right away. They look so much more comfy than a clothes pin. And I like the little zipper up storage pouch. Just in case I have to use ‘em again in 2012. Ha! DD
Darvin Dowdy on July 21, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2