Seriously. Why should anyone care about what this guy thinks as if he is the last word on what "the family" is. I know he carries a lot of weight with the evangelical community overall. But why did he become the poster-boy and spokesperson? Do people really follow this guy like panting dogs after a juicy steak? If so, why? I agree with his first line here, but would he have said that when Bush was using this particular strategy successfully against Kerry?
"There's nothing dishonorable in a person rethinking his or her positions, especially in a constantly changing political context," Dobson said in a statement to the AP. "Barack Obama contradicts and threatens everything I believe about the institution of the family and what is best for the nation. His radical positions on life, marriage and national security force me to reevaluate the candidacy of our only other choice, John McCain."
Earlier, Dobson had said he could not in good conscience vote for McCain, citing the candidate's support for embryonic stem cell research and opposition to a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, as well as concerns about McCain's temper and foul language.
Apparently Dobson has not grasped just how similar McCain and Obama are. Obama clearly cannot contradict everything Dobson believes unless of course McCain does too. So he can "flip-flop" on his position as long as the candidates do not. The sub-text is that he is pining for Huckabee as VP. Given the appalling religious infusion in this season's debates pandering to evangelicals, that would be a good strategic move for McCain. But McCain's use of religion before the presidential campaign season with religion as a private matter was far more honorable. I wish he would have stayed the course. But alas, such is the political environment these days.
Case in point, they will be having their first public forum where they might appear together for the first time at Rick Warren's mega-church.
Mr. Warren, the author of the best-selling book “The Purpose-Driven Life,” said he had called each man personally to invite him to his event, which will focus on how they make decisions and on some of Mr. Warren’s main areas of focus, like AIDS, poverty and the environment.
“I just got to thinking, you know what? These guys have never been together on the same stage, it would be a neat way to cap the primary season before they both go to the conventions and things go dark for a couple of weeks,” he said. “I’ve known both the guys for a long time, they’re both friends of mine, and I knew them before they ran for office, so I just called them up.”
Doesn't that strike anyone else as odd? We know that Obama has been playing the faith card as hard as possible to shore up the evangelicals. It's getting a bit distasteful and tiresome. Anyone else a bit squeamish over this?
Related posts:
Certainly evangelicals don't have a spokesdude, but the media needs someone so Dobson and Warren will probably be as good as any. Their fans, although probably less than 5% of the total evangelical population, are still more numerous than other potential leaders.
Although I am not happy with McCain or Obama on social issues, I think there is still a big difference between them. McCain is a bit schizophrenic, sometimes one way, sometimes the other way, and sometimes taking positions that reflect his views of the constitution or federalism as they impact social issues that annoy conservatives, but aren't truly leftist either. Obama seems to be simply a classic social leftist.
Certainly evangelicals don't have a spokesdude, but the media needs someone so Dobson and Warren will probably be as good as any. Their fans, although probably less than 5% of the total evangelical population, are still more numerous than other potential leaders.
Although I am not happy with McCain or Obama on social issues, I think there is still a big difference between them. McCain is a bit schizophrenic, sometimes one way, sometimes the other way, and sometimes taking positions that reflect his views of the constitution or federalism as they impact social issues that annoy conservatives, but aren't truly leftist either. Obama seems to be simply a classic social leftist.
It's so hard to pin either down right now which is part of my frustration. They really are who they are talking to, at least it appears that way through the media lens.
But I think that you are right, that this might be mostly a media product to brand the identity of a given voting cohort.
It's so hard to pin either down right now which is part of my frustration. They really are who they are talking to, at least it appears that way through the media lens.
But I think that you are right, that this might be mostly a media product to brand the identity of a given voting cohort.
RE: It’s getting a bit distasteful and tiresome. Anyone else a bit squeamish over this?
yes. Yes. YES!
RE: It’s getting a bit distasteful and tiresome. Anyone else a bit squeamish over this?
yes. Yes. YES!
It is odd. And from the position of Obama and McCain, the pandering is tiresome, although I am not sure if it is any more or less tiresome than the pandering to any other constituency. I would have preferred that they meet in a public arena, but at least in this case, the invitation came from Warren (and apparently after he realized that there had been no such public forum).
But I would also differentiate between Dobson and Warren. Dobson tends to be incendiary and oppositional, whereas Warren at least tries to work with people who explicitly disagree with him in order to work through issues of AIDS, poverty, and the environment. In fact, I had interpreted Warren's move here as a response to Dobson (rather than illustrating something that Dobson represents): Dobson reluctantly supporting McCain by painting Obama is a more negative light than McCain, and Warren trying to be clearly more even-handed, giving each candidate an equal chance to present their views side by side to evangelical voters.
So with this forum, the candidates will be discussing issues that have fallen through the cracks lately (Warren's pet issues): AIDS, Poverty, and the Environment. These are global issues that everyone should have a stake in, and should be discussed in the election no matter who brings them up. At least these evangelicals (similar to Warren) are moving away from the issues that the religious right (like Dobson) have tended to push: "family values," abortion, and recently gay marriage.
Nonetheless, no matter who brings up these issues, whether an evangelical, an atheist, or a journalist, holding the debate itself in a church is what makes me the most squeamish.
It is odd. And from the position of Obama and McCain, the pandering is tiresome, although I am not sure if it is any more or less tiresome than the pandering to any other constituency. I would have preferred that they meet in a public arena, but at least in this case, the invitation came from Warren (and apparently after he realized that there had been no such public forum).
But I would also differentiate between Dobson and Warren. Dobson tends to be incendiary and oppositional, whereas Warren at least tries to work with people who explicitly disagree with him in order to work through issues of AIDS, poverty, and the environment. In fact, I had interpreted Warren's move here as a response to Dobson (rather than illustrating something that Dobson represents): Dobson reluctantly supporting McCain by painting Obama is a more negative light than McCain, and Warren trying to be clearly more even-handed, giving each candidate an equal chance to present their views side by side to evangelical voters.
So with this forum, the candidates will be discussing issues that have fallen through the cracks lately (Warren's pet issues): AIDS, Poverty, and the Environment. These are global issues that everyone should have a stake in, and should be discussed in the election no matter who brings them up. At least these evangelicals (similar to Warren) are moving away from the issues that the religious right (like Dobson) have tended to push: "family values," abortion, and recently gay marriage.
Nonetheless, no matter who brings up these issues, whether an evangelical, an atheist, or a journalist, holding the debate itself in a church is what makes me the most squeamish.
Squeamish? More than that, to be honest. I've liked a couple of Dobson's books, but that's about all I can take. Listening to him on "Focus on the Family" is almost as painful as listening to any other bitter radio host.
Squeamish? More than that, to be honest. I've liked a couple of Dobson's books, but that's about all I can take. Listening to him on "Focus on the Family" is almost as painful as listening to any other bitter radio host.
@jared I agree. There is a world of difference between Warren and Dobson. That's partially why I thought it was weird how the media seemed to dovetail all of this together and that all of it popped up at the same time. There is definitely a crafting of brand identity here that's probably not as close to reality as it could be.
@jared I agree. There is a world of difference between Warren and Dobson. That's partially why I thought it was weird how the media seemed to dovetail all of this together and that all of it popped up at the same time. There is definitely a crafting of brand identity here that's probably not as close to reality as it could be.
[...] – bookmarked by 6 members originally found by ivv on 2008-08-17 Why Does Dobson’s Opinion Matter with Politics…or Anything? [...]