McCain courts Dobson Conservatives

[Centexfarmer]

O.K., I'm confused here. Why so many post insinuating that McCain and Dobson are somehow linked when the thread author's own source says...

McCain is trying to build support among conservatives after a recent rebuke from Christian leader James Dobson, who said he wouldn't back McCain's presidential bid.

Am I missing something? McCain is not new to the pro-life movement. He has been stridently pro-life his entire career in politics. Dobson obviously does not feel the same way about him that some members of JUB do, this quote from the author of this thread on another thread...

"Dobson has already come out against John McCain for his tepid view on 'supporting' same-sex unions, saying he could never vote for him. "

So how are McCain's people and the Dobson's people somehow 'buddies' ??? Again, am I missing something here?

Maybe McCain is trying to compete with Mitt Romney?

Either way they're both "wafflers" to me.

Whoever they have to suck, or sleep with to get a vote!

It's not like either of those two will get my vote on any topic.

 

[Kulindahr]

From Ron Paul's Wikipedia page:

Seems his support was limited, in that his point was to make sure that no state would be required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states if they didn't want to. Given his fervor for Constitutional government, something we haven't seen for several generations, this is consistent. He said in that speech that hew doesn't think it's government's business to define marriage, especially on the federal level (note his opposition to the amendment on the same topic). It seems to me his thinking there is a bit clouded, something not usual for him.

But on everything else, he's straight on -- and he still has more integrity in his right ear than McCain has in his entire body.

 

[Roland00]

Neither did Kimmy Carter -- no one had heard of him.
Neither did Ronald Reagan -- he was just a washed-up actor.

I am talking the 2008 election not the 2012 or some future election. Reagan was within a percentage point of getting the nomination in 1976 instead of Ford and was well known in 1980 and thus a shoe in.

He may be a great candidate which has the chance to win some future election, not 2008 though.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am talking the 2008 election not the 2012 or some future election. Reagan was within a percentage point of getting the nomination in 1976 instead of Ford and was well known in 1980 and thus a shoe in.

He may be a great candidate which has the chance to win some future election, not 2008 though.

He would be great for this country -- we'd see the Imperial Presidency that's been building since at least Kundon Johnson (with a hiatus under Jimmy Carter_ dismantled right and left. Paul's the sort who just might issue a Presidential Finding limiting the use of presidential Executive Orders......


It just hit me that Dobson would HATE Ron Paul, even though Paul's personal ethics aren't far from Dobson's -- he just doesn't believe in imposing his on others through armed force.

 

[Kulindahr]

He's wrong on two accounts: that there is something wrong with same-sex marriage and that there is such a thing as judicial activism.

You're right on one of those, anyway.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've seen enough wild court decisions to know that there is judicial activism.
Though I would disagree with Congressman Paul -- it comes from the Right, too... which is why one of my fondest dreams is a Libertarian President, and then most of SCOTUS gets killed in some accident......

I will agree that, fortunately, a lot of judicial activism gets stamped out a a higher level -- but some of it occurs there, too; for example, Roe v. Wade.

 

[Roland00]

p.s., Barrack Obama has met and found common ground with the christian right in people like Rev. Rick Warren, (a purpose driven life.), far bigger in the movement than Rev. Dobson, and he too, holds positions like opposition to same sex marriage, as do the majority of other Democratic Presidential hopefuls.

I disagree while Rick Warren is a powerful person in the evangelical movement he hasn't transformed that power into political power.

James Dodson has, him and his focus on the family is a huge organization which is mainly political (in theory Farmily Rearch Council is the think tank). 1.5 million daily listeners to his talk show. 2.3 million people pay for his magazine. And (this one which I am recalling thus it may be off) 3 million people are sign up for his free e-mail list.

While Rick Warren may have more potential followers he hasn't transformed those followers into a political organization and thus a political force. If you aren't organized it is hard to get people to vote the way you want to, and thus your political influence is less. (Even though you have more potential future influence)

 

[Roland00]

There candidates winning primary elections is different than getting there votes in the house and senate. Or getting congressman and senators to write legislation they are sympathetic for.

 

[Kulindahr]

From reading of batches of both their books, I'd say Warren is far more a real evangelical, in the proper meaning of the term: he believes that it is the task of the church to change the world, but through the Gospel, not through political activism. It's not so much a matter of being subtle, but of having a boundary that Martin Luther learned the hard way, after his dabbling in politics led to the slaughter of thousands -- after that he insisted "Let the Word do its work!"

I hope Warren stays that way, more of a Billy Graham figure than a theocrat.