especially since we ended up with McCain.

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.

I feel very silly debating you, as I am usually in total agreement with your well-articulated comments.

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.

People question Barack Obama’s Christianity all the time.

Yeah, and I don’t think that’s right either, especially those who pretend as though he’s secretly a Muslim.

You may argue that it was in bad taste

That’s basically all I’m saying, though I understand that you disagree.

Let me clarify. Dobson’s characterization as a Christian seems to be reason enough, in some circles, to limit his political speech

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Renae on July 21, 2008 at 2:06 PM

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.

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?

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.

Why again should Dobson not send emails about 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.

Do other conservatives “appear” to be wanting McCain to pander to them when they say they are not sure they can vote for him?

Probably. But again, if you’re talking about pundits, there is a difference.

The difference seems to me to be that Dobson is a Christian or what am I missing?

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.

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

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?

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.
Al-Ozarka on July 21, 2008 at 12:24 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).

So you believe that Dobson is motivated by a desire to be personally pandered to by John McCain?

I didn’t say that. I said that it looks that way. I can’t say for certain either way.

Friendly question. What evidence of meglomania leads you to that conclusion?

Renae on July 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM

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.

“…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.” 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?

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.”

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.

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

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.

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 12:36 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.

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

is indeed, a fantasy.

Yeah, that’s why I called it my fantasy.

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.

And if McCain wins am I allowed to complain even if I help him win?

If you want to live in reality

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?

then I suggest that they make this move permanent.

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.

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. Especially if they are so sure of themselves that they have the confidence to excoriate their ostensible fellow travelers.

(Responding to misterpeasea on July 20, 2008 at 11:24 PM)
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?
Esthier on July 21, 2008 at 10:40 AM

“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.

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

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.

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.

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..

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

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.