Friday, November 09, 2007

BREAKING: Dr. James Dobson to endorse Mike Huckabee

In the wake of Pat Robertson's sellout endorsement of the adulterous womanizing pro-abortion Mayor of New York, Dr. James Dobson is in a position to become the undisputed political leader of the evangelical Protestant wing of the social Right. That newfound power is about to be put to the test.

The American Spectator is reporting that Dr. Dobson will soon announce his endorsement of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Regardless of whether one supports Huckabee or not, if the report of Dobson endorsing Huckabee and planning a tour of Iowa are true, Huckabee has just gone from being a second tier candidate in the Republican Primary to being a serious contender. Why? A Dobson endorsement carries something a Robertson endorsement doesn't-moral weight.

I'm a practicing Catholic, and Dr. Dobson and I have different theological worldviews-yet I freely admit to listening to Dr. Dobson's radio show and to reading his books and listening to his tapes. When I want advice from a conservative perspective about what is good or bad in family social trends, Dr. Dobson is well-informed and authoritative. I have always liked James Dobson, even though I do not always agree with him, because if there is one thing James Dobson is not it is a waffler. If Dr. Dobson says he believes something, he will continue to believe it and you can bank on that.

If I as a Catholic think these things about Dr. James Dobson, think of what the millions of evangelical Protestants who turn to Focus On the Family think of him. Pondering that for just a second, think of what a Dobson endorsement could do for the campaign of any Republican candidate for President. If you are a frontrunner, Dobson can put you over the top in the South and the Plains. If you are a second-tier candidate, Dobson's nod makes you a front-of-the-pack contender in a very closely-packed Primary.

My support of Fred Thompson is well-known, but I do think Fred has made a number of mistakes in this campaign. Few if any can't be undone or dealt with. The one misstep Fred seems to have made that sticks in my craw is that he failed to court the Focus On the Family crowd to any significant degree. On abortion, Fred is pro-life, but has a strong States' Rights approach-one that I agree with. Moral conservatives will buy that approach and they have done so before, but a candidate has to be willing to go sell it to them-to show them that he cares about the tragedy of abortion. I do think Fred cares, but I think some of the folks around Fred-in his very inner circle-are underestimating the power and sway of Dobson and his proteges on the Right.

If Dobson does endorse Huckabee, it could take Southern votes away from from Fred Thompson and make winning on Super Tuesday a very difficult proposition indeed. I hope and pray the report isn't true-that is how much it could hurt Thompson's campaign.



At Friday, November 09, 2007 12:10:00 PM, Blogger A. Renee Daley said...

This endorsement just goes to show that so-cons, and the Religious Right care nothing about the Constitution.

I would rather live with a Democrat in office for four years, than eight years of the WRONG Republican.

Nothing like selling out your soul to keep the power you have.

At Friday, November 09, 2007 12:19:00 PM, Blogger A. Renee Daley said...


David - used your breaking story over at Blogs for Fred Thompson

At Friday, November 09, 2007 2:16:00 PM, Blogger Matt Daley said...


First, I really have to take issue with any kind of support for Dr. James Dobson. As a fellow Catholic, it amazes me that Catholics could support him when he's obviously got a latent hatred of Catholics and Caholicism. To go as far as to say that Catholics aren't Christians...I just can't tolerate that. And he's done that within the context of the current Presidential campaign. To me, that vitriol taints everything else that he says. A person with such beliefs and lack of basic Church knowledge cannot be trusted on other matters.

It would be like a black person supporting a white person and ignoring when that white person says "blacks aren't people". It's just bigotry.

Second, I have to heartily disagree with your stance that Evangelicals would buy into Fred Thompson's states-rights approach. Maybe they would have in the past, but they clearly don't now.

Fred doesn't invoke God or his religion on the campaign trail, in general. He's not an ardent church-goer. And he refuses to support federal measures against abortion and gay marriage. All one has to do is read the blogosphere and/or pay attention to the news to see how all these things infuriate the Evangelicals and fundamentalists in our party.

And all the evidence that I need is the reaction to Fred's appearance on Meet The Press last Sunday. He was there, for all the world to see, explaining his views on these subjects. And the reaction? Entirely negative, from the Dobson-ite crowd. So, where in the world do you get the idea that they would buy into the states-rights idea?

Or should Fred pander to the Evangelicals and abandon traditional conservative values in order to win? David, I thought that you and I long ago had established that we wanted a GOOD candidate, not just an electable one. Have you abandoned that stance?

This may be "breaking" news, but it's no surprise. And honestly, even if it means that Fred has to lose, I'm glad he doesn't have this support. The neo-con and Evangelica/fundie wings of our party are destroying it from within in 3 separate ways: they're driving true conservatives like me away, they're either blind to or are completely abandoning traditional conservatism, and they're candidates who have no hope of fulfilling their promises. We're right back to where we were in 2000 -- we're pushing electable candidates instead of one's worth electing.

And if these wings of the party think that Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee are going to deliver on any of these promises -- especially regarding abortion and gay marriage -- they're just as stupid as the voters who bought the tripe that Democrats used to get a Congressional majority last year. Have any of THOSE promises been kept?

And while it's true to say that Fred may have made a mistake or two on the campaign trail, to classify this as being HIS fault or as HIS mistake is the worst kind of tripe. It's not Fred's fault that there are a bunch of lunatics in our party who have completely lost their minds.

To close, I'll simply say this -- and you can take it to the bank. If anyone other than Fred wins the nomination, I'm going to work incessantly to ensure that said candidate does NOT win next November. If that happens, I want the party to lose the White House. Maybe then, the far-right in our party will either get some brains or the party will finally fracture. Either way, it would be a better result than having another 4 to 8 years of what we've had for the last 8.

And if that means that I have to vote for Hillary -- if I have to work to kill my own party in order to save it -- you can rest assured that I will.

It's that serious. We're screwing ourselves, and I'm tired of it. I just can't believe you're not with me, David, given what you've said in the past. I pray that such past comments weren't just lip service.

At Friday, November 09, 2007 7:57:00 PM, Blogger A. Renee Daley said...

Looks like the endorsement story was bogus - or premature.

At Friday, November 09, 2007 9:09:00 PM, Blogger Ned Williams said...

Wow Matt, them's some strong words. 40% of voters are SoCons, and Fred would be wise not to diss them. And I believe these hyperbolic claims of anti-constitutionalism are specious.

But, what anti-Catholic bigotry on Dobson's part are you referring to?

At Friday, November 09, 2007 10:19:00 PM, Blogger Matt Daley said...


Look, I'm not out to start an intra-Republican war in the blogosphere. I am happy that so many people feel so strongly about social conservatism, and I would LOVE to have a large, united voting bloc that could help make this country truly what it was intended to be.

Unfortunately, many of my Republican brothers and sisters have abandoned other conservative values and focused only on social issues. That's obviously their choice, but as for me, I simply can't support a candidate that's only somewhat conservative.

And yes, my words are strong...and I would hope that Senator Thompson would be a bit more diplomatic about it than I probably come across -- but I mean what I say. I feel very strongly about this issue. It's not personal on any level -- I just don't want to see our country lose it's way (even more than it already has).

Now, what you've said regarding using the amendment process of the Constitution to fix the abortion problem is very true. I don't know if I support even that -- the amendment process is to be used in very rare, special instances. And I don't know if using that process to enforce a particular social agenda would be the correct thing to do.

However, I would be much more okay with that than I would be federal legislation that usurps the rights of the states.

(Of course, I don't believe such an amendment could pass Congress anyway -- altho, if it did, it would have a good chance of being ratified in the states...)

So, no, I don't think that all social conservatives wish to push their agenda on America through federal legislation -- but let's not ignore the fact that a sizable bloc of that group does.

As for Dr. Dobson, he's said what I used (Catholics aren't Chrisitans) when speaking about Rudy Giuliani a few months back. That's enough for me.


At Friday, November 09, 2007 11:00:00 PM, Anonymous SteveMule said...

The Dobsen endorsment will do nothing. This election will reveal that the SoCon leaders like Dobsen, et al, disposable. The true rallying call will be in the form of anti-Hillary. Electability will be the ruling paradigm.
Fred, great guy that he is, is a dissapointing flop. Huckabee, another great guy, simply won't have the support no matter how much Dobsen supports/endorses him. Rudy's problems are only now starting to catch up with him (think Bernie ...) and poor Mitt is just a pretty face.


At Saturday, November 10, 2007 2:45:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Dobson never said Catholics weren't Christians=he said Guiliani was a bad Catholic and was not a Christian. You really need to get your facts straight here...

At Saturday, November 10, 2007 2:54:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Also...since when would I not be considered a "SoCon?"

I am an extremely strong States' Rights man and a strict Constitutionalist, and that goes without saying, but I have always been a very serious social conservative, and that has always been a primary motivating factor in my political involvement.

At Saturday, November 10, 2007 5:28:00 AM, Anonymous A. Renee Daley said...


To ignore the fact that there many Evangelicals out there who consider Catholics non-Christian is you getting your facts wrong.

While Dobson may not have said it, (according to you), it doesn't change the fact that some feel that way.

If you are willing to abandon all other conservative principles in the name of social conservatism - like so many others have just to win an election.

That's your choice.

At Saturday, November 10, 2007 10:20:00 AM, Anonymous SteveMule said...

I believe the "are Catholics Christians" questions goes back to the Sola Fide issue of the Reformation. Evangelicals regard this in very simplistic terms. Catholics tend (I believe) to see it a little more complicated than that. Consequently, Evangelicals have (unfairly) dismissed Catholics as "works based" and therefore non-christian. It's all nonsense.


At Saturday, November 10, 2007 10:54:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

A couple of things...

1) I never said that Fred should diss the SoCon vote. (Forgot to respond to this earlier) If Fred can get that vote, GREAT. I'd be thrilled. But he should not, for one second, pander to that bloc in order to get their votes. Either the SoCons are with him on his platform, or they're not. And if they're not, I do not hold Fred responsible for that -- because, for complete, traditional conservatives, Fred's platform is the CORRECT one.

2) I find the dismissive attitude of some towards this problem disturbing. Some would have us believe that it's a non-problem -- or that the problem is the fault of those who won't pander to the SoCons that have abanoned other tenets of conservatism.

I strongly disagree.

The abandonment of traditional conservatism in the name of implementing a favorable social agenda is both hypocritical 9because who is the first to cry foul when liberals try the same thing?) and dangerous as well. The more we do this, the more difficult it becomes for us, as a country, to go back.

And when the day comes that our country has gone too far -- when we can no longer recognize it -- those conservatives who have chosen this road...those conservatives who choose to either ignore this problem or blame it on others...are the ones who will need to look in the mirror.

And that day is coming -- sooner than you might like to think.

At Saturday, November 10, 2007 2:52:00 PM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

And David...

What is the difference between these two statements:

"Catholics are not Christians"
"Giuliani is a bad Catholic and not a Christian"

In the latter statement, Dobson is CLEARLY inferring that he believes Catholics are not Christians. If he were not, then the " a bad Catholic and not a Christian" would not be necessary. All he would need to say is " a bad Catholic" OR " a bad Christian". The problem is that he combines the two statements.

David, you know me very well. Don't talk down to me or insult me by saying that I don't have my facts straight. I'm very particular about that, and I do know what I'm talking about.

I would say, in this instance, given your clear admiration for the man and what he stands for...I would say that it's you who needs to clear yourself of bias towards him and get your facts straight.

I would really like to know -- as a Catholic, how can you POSSIBLY condone or just choose to ignore anti-Catholic bias?

At Saturday, November 10, 2007 4:24:00 PM, Blogger Ned Williams said...

I've heard some pro-Fred arguments but none that assert he is the perfect Conservative. So I'll say right up front that I'm impressed with your zeal . . .

To be clear, I think that Thompson is rather Conservative and I could gladly back him over almost any Democrat (indeed, I only say, "almost" so as to seem reasonable).

Re. the Catholicism issue, I can't speak for Dobson, but I can say that I think it is contrary to the Bible to assert that doing all the Catholic religious stuff--just like doing all the Evangelical or Protestant religious stuff, will satisfy God. But saying someone is "a bad Catholic" and "not a Christian" does not imply anything about being a Catholic. And I'm still wary of your assertions about what Dobson said.

You wrote:Unfortunately, many of my Republican brothers and sisters have abandoned other conservative values and focused only on social issues. That's obviously their choice, but as for me, I simply can't support a candidate that's only somewhat conservative.

NO CANDIDATE HAS PERFECT "CONSERVATIVE" BONA FIDES. And I'm not even sure it's possible to define what those positions would be on a host of issues. I'd appreciate it if you out (generally speaking) what you believe those positions to be. Gosh (and I hate to type this even) perhaps Ron Paul's views (when considered outside of current realities and political realities in general) are most Conservative, but Thompson's sure don't. Again, I like him and I generally like the positions he's espousing in this campaign, but his record is not unblemished from a Conservative perspective. It is crucial during a primary to realize that you are very likely to have to eat your words when the general election comes around. I don't know you from Adam, so I don't know how reflective your comments here are of your views, but you'll need all Republicans to support your candidate at the end of the primary, so threatening, "If anyone other than Fred wins the nomination, I'm going to work incessantly to ensure that said candidate does NOT win next November," seems foolish. Why should anyone bend on their (contrary-to-yours) priorities when you make such assertions?

Re. a Constitutional amendment on abortion, it seems odd that you--as a Catholic and real Conservative, would consider any issue more fundamental than protecting innocent human life. So, can you tell me what issue would be more appropriate for an amendment?

At Sunday, November 11, 2007 2:02:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

There are many evangelicals who consider Catholics non-Christians-however, not only is this not the majority view in 2007, those who hold this view are not considered to be "in the mainstream" of evangelical politics.

How do I know this? I live in a place where Catholics make up less than 2% of the population but have a Hell of a lot of say in business and government in Knox and Hamblen Counties. Catholics and evangelicals often depend on one another when the going gets tough. There would be no pro-life movement in Tennessee without a strong alliance between Catholics and evangelicals. That is the REALITY...

Your logic isn't based in reality, and it will hurt more than the Republican Party if followed to its logical conclusion-it will harm irreparably both the pro-life movement and conservatism in general.

At Sunday, November 11, 2007 4:29:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

I am still contemplating how I would like to respond to Mr. Williams, but I just need to say this...

David, this specific point is a red herring and is serving only to get away from the essential crux of the problem here -- a problem that continues to be denied and/or blamed on the people that would try to solve it.

I think Renee and I are both done trying to convince. If you don't get what we're trying to say, there's nothing we can do about that, except pray. We've already explained our beliefs and what we intend to do, and we are not going to waver on that. As I said...if we have to participate in the disintegration of the Republican Party, so be it.

Or is the Party and the pro-life movement more important than conservatism and the future of our great land? That's a question we all must ask ourselves.

Also, quite frankly, I'm growing rather aggravated with this "you don't have your facts straight" or "your logic isn't based in reality" routine. I have already asked you not to talk down to us. Do I need to ask again for you not to disrespect the opinions of others?

If you disagree with what we have to say, that's one thing...but I will not abide disrespect. There is no need for that, especially when both Renee and I have been preached the "civility" lecture.

At Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:55:00 PM, Blogger Ned Williams said...

You left the Democrat Party in 2001 and you're supposed to have better Conservative credentials than . . . whom? I'm glad that you're in the GOP but who sounds like the "fanatic" in this context? Who's the one threatening to campaign for Hillary unless their candidate gets the GOP nomination?

My apologies if I think that abortion is more fundamental than marginal tax rates or campaign finance reform.

You're not being "pushed out of the GOP" simply because some Republicans aren't fawning over your candidate. Don't be bothered that I don't post under the name "Impassionateaboutmike" . . . I support his candidacy and blog about his candidacy because he's strong on several issues that are important to me, but I will almost definitely vote for the Republican who gets the nomination and could gladly support any of them.

At Saturday, February 02, 2008 7:37:00 AM, Anonymous jimmy dobson for president said...

His endorsement is a Judas kiss.

Do u know the connections Dobson has to certain foreign interests?

video-Dr. James Dobson: The Christian Hologram


Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map