UPDATED WITH TRANSCRIPT James Dobson Explains…Or Does He?
UPDATE: Transcript here
I watched James Dobson on H&C last night, you can see a clip here. I find him to be a hypocrite on his entire platform. He is passionate on prolife, yet will throw backing behind a radical pro-choice candidate? Somehow he thinks that if she gets in, the conservative movement can fight any legislation, yet if Rudy get in, there will be no fight? He is out of touch with the conservative base, and it appears to me that he is just looking out for his position. He should have thought of that prior to making his announcement of a third party candidate. He weakened his position, he didn’t strengthen it. The religious right is not gaining status, it is losing ground, and more people are turning away from them.
I don’t look to James Dobson for a morality check on the way I live my life. I am the best Catholic that I can be and I answer to God and no one else.
He cited municipal judges as a basis for who Rudy would pick for S.C.? Seriously? That is what he has to go by? Were they all bad choices? How do they stack up against the picks that are in place by the Dems?
He says that Rudy’s record isn’t good in NYC? He and those he hired, turned the city around and made it a safer place to be.
He says it’s difficult to explain? Then maybe he should just shut his mouth until he can.
Reaction from others:
Apparently, it is better to commit political suicide than to, you know, actually accomplish anything. Dobson’s zeal to protect the unborn will lead him to abandon the actual born – and any real chance to protect the unborn in the long run. What chance do the unborn stand if the courts are packed against them?
The most fundamental problem that I see in his conclusion is that he knows full well that if he siphons off even a percent or two from the GOP candidate to some doomed third party candidate, he will be handing the election to a radical pro-choice candidate who among other things is likely to be very bad on the war and awful across a whole range of issues that Dobson rightly holds dear. And the rest of the GOP will end up blaming him and social conservatives for her ascension to power.
This is what a social conservative leader looks like when he believes his hold on a major political party is slipping. It’s not pretty.
Does he really believe electing Hillary would be better for the unborn child and the pro-life movement?
Really?
Jay:
I admire standing on principle. I’m undecided, but I can tell you this much. I won’t be voting for Rudy. However, I differ greatly with Dobson on this overall. I don’t see much difference between Rudy and Hillary. If thats what it comes down to, I probably won’t vote. However, several other candidates would be much preferable than the disaster America would face with Hillary as President. So for me, a third party candidate is pretty much out of the question.
Curt:
Looking at it from his point of view he appears to believe that if Rudy is elected, or Fred, then his movement is dead and will take a long time to recover. While this stand is principled, it will make abortion more likely, not less. Hillary gets in and puts a liberal on the court and you can kiss ever getting Roe overturned. His refusal to acknowledge this is smugness to the nth degree. Rudy may not be perfect for his movement, but its completely childish behavior to demand he get his way or no Republican gets in.
Jim:
I do hope that someone out there in the Republican Party is paying attention to this serious controversy. The last thing Republicans need right now is to split the party in two a year before elections!
Unless, of course, Republicans are satisfied with potty-mouthed Hillary Clinton back in the White House again…
And, a Supreme Court stacked with a gaggle of Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones
More reaction at memeorandum
October 9, 2007 - 09:04 AM on October 9th, 2007
“He is passionate on prolife, yet will throw backing behind a radical pro-choice candidate?”
Actually, no he wouldn’t. That’s why he said he wouldn’t vote for Rudy- he has a pro-choice record. He never said he would support a pro-choice candidate, and Hannity had an interesting graphic of a poll that illustrated what would happen if the Christian Right supported a 3rd party pro-life candidate instead of a Republican one.
October 9, 2007 - 09:21 AM on October 9th, 2007
Oh, and with that all said I will have to bow to SFL’s foresight on this one and say he was right. Because of this, Hillary is more than likely going to be the next President, unless something radical happens and the Republicans can regain the support of the Radical Right Christian Fundies.
(originally posted on the wrong thread)
October 9, 2007 - 09:46 AM on October 9th, 2007
Ted, based on his position, he is supporting Hillary. He is the voice of the Christian Conservatives..
We are not the country we were in the 70’s or early 80’s…look at how our culture has changed since Reagan left office. It isn’t exactly one of high morals. The radical right did nothing to ebb this…time moves forward, not back.
Again, he says he has a hard time explaining it…how about he remains silent and appoints someone that is better able to state the position…
October 9, 2007 - 01:51 PM on October 9th, 2007
“Ted, based on his position, he is supporting Hillary.”
No, he isn’t. He is looking to support a third party pro-life candidate. Just because he doesn’t support a Republican candidate does not mean he supports a Democratic candidate by default.
He did say that he fears that if Guiliani or one of the other three got into office, he was afraid that the pro life position would fizzle and die. As a result, he said that if Hillary won the likely outcome would be the pro-life movement would be energized against her.This is no way means he supports Hillary though.
October 9, 2007 - 02:41 PM on October 9th, 2007
By throwing support to a third party candidate, he knows that the Democrats, or Hillary, if the election were today, gets it…so yes, he is supporting her, whether he wants to admit it or not.
How is it that all of us that oppose abortion would all of a sudden support it? Why on earth would we quit fighting against legalized murder of innocent babies?
It sounds to me like he is trying to stay relevant…
October 9, 2007 - 02:55 PM on October 9th, 2007
I don’t really want Hillary Clinton to be president either, but, if this keeps up…
My mom and her friends are my link to the religious far-right. She’s one of those hardcore “born-again” christians and does not support Guiliani in any way and would rather vote 3rd party or just might leave that question black on the ballot.
October 9, 2007 - 03:03 PM on October 9th, 2007
I believe that a H.Clinton presidency would revive the Religious Right and would energize the Right in ways not seen in over a decade.
It’s possible that the some in the Far Right might forfit this election with that purpose in mind.
Now regarding abortion, there would be riots in the street and massive scale civil disobediance all over the nation if a womans reproductive freedom was taken away.
It’s just not going to happen.
The current status quo is advantagous to all sides on the political spectrum. The Right uses anti-abortion rhetoric to get anti-abortion voters to elect their guy or gal. The Left uses the situation to recruit their own voters to retain the womans right.
Nothing is going to change. Why do you think it’s gone on like this for so long? Both sides political power-brokers love keeping the issue alive.
October 9, 2007 - 07:56 PM on October 9th, 2007
“By throwing support to a third party candidate, he knows that the Democrats, or Hillary, if the election were today, gets it:so yes, he is supporting her, whether he wants to admit it or not.”
No- that is a fallacy of logic. He supports who ever he votes for not whoever wins the election that he doesn’t vote for. If I abstain my vote, then who do I support?
No one- because they are all crooks and liars.
“Now regarding abortion, there would be riots in the street and massive scale civil disobediance all over the nation if a womans reproductive freedom was taken away.”
Pure idiocy. There would be no civil unrest, because America is so complacent it doesn’t even care to vote let alone protest. Sure, you’d get a speed bump about it in the history books as a few extremist radical groups would protest, but other than that you’d get Jack.
Just a note- you should study up on Roe v. Wade, as it does absolutely nothing to insure “reproductive rights”. (what ever that gob smacked politically charged bullshit term is supposed to mean).
“I believe that a H.Clinton presidency would revive the Religious Right and would energize the Right in ways not seen in over a decade.”
Yes, and that spells trouble for your side because they are an abject failure of both policy and strategy. They don’t win because of what they do, they only win when the other side allows them to do so.
Yes, the Democrats and Republicans- proof that the laws of physics aren’t absolute as they can both blow and suck at the same time.
October 9, 2007 - 08:06 PM on October 9th, 2007
8- No it isn’t a fallacy Ted. This isn’t you or I talking on the blogs. This is James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family and probably the strongest voice of the Christian Coalition. When he talks, his voice is carried to the millions. Your voice or mine are not. He doesn’t have the luxury of speaking for himself anymore, as you or I can.
October 9, 2007 - 11:10 PM on October 9th, 2007
“Just a note- you should study up on Roe v. Wade, as it does absolutely nothing to insure “reproductive rightsâ€. (what ever that gob smacked politically charged bullshit term is supposed to mean).”
————————
Reproductive Freedom is defined by the action of a woman freely choosing to have an abortion, and then getting it done in a regulated clinical environment.
Today, that is a daily reality for hundreds, if not thousands of women in America – thanks to Roe vs Wade and the protections that followed.
If the abortion procedures were to lose legal protections from the Federal Government, it is entirely possible that there will eventually be women in many states who would no longer be able to legaly aquire an abortion.
And yes, massive civil disobediance would be highly possible in the unlikely banning of abortion nationwide. I see no other way for women to protest the lose of their right to reproductive freedom.
Maybe, to get their point across better, they would perform the procedure themselves with coat hangers in the offices of politicans and in the churches.
Modern day sit-ins, so-to-speak.
October 10, 2007 - 06:07 AM on October 10th, 2007
What all of you, especially SFL, fail to recognize is that if Federal abortion laws and Roe are striken down, the issue reverts to the states, and individual states CAN legalize abortion, as CA and NY surely will.
October 10, 2007 - 09:44 PM on October 10th, 2007
I want to say something first and foremost. I don’t give a rats rectum about abortion. There are however a number of problems with Roe v. Wade. It is BAD precedent with no solid Constitutional backing. The entire issue of abortion should be settled at the legislative level, not by 9 old men (remember Roe v. Wade predates Sandra Day O’Connor’s appointment.) in black robes. It is judicial activism at its worst.
As I have said on NUMEROUS occasions, there are ways to get what you want in the social scheme of things, and this continual parade in front of judges is not it. Try winning elections. It’s called social EVOLUTION versus social REVOLUTION. Evolution is a one way road. Revolutions always come back around. As long as the voting populace has had the option of VOTING for or against a topic, they are far more likely (lefties excepted) to accept the outcome. The people of this country absolutely HATE being dictated to by a bunch of unelected people with lifetime appointments.
October 16, 2007 - 12:41 PM on October 16th, 2007
Dobson had released a letter in the past explaining why he was endorsing a pro choice canidate. I know, I saw the letter. The christian coalition has consistantly backed pro choice republicans, AND WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE FORCED ABORTIONS IN SAIPAN, TOM DELAY, PAT ROBERSON, JAMES DOBSON TURNED THEIR HEADS.
I used to believe in these power hungry hyprocrites.