The Dobson Undorsement

He just told Laura Ingraham he won't vote for McCain in the general election. Here's a snippet:

I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

You can read the whole thing here. I would make three points. First, Dobson conspicuously didn't endorse Mitt Romney; indeed, the entire statement more or less assumes a McCain victory, and strikes a note of near-elegiac wistfulness rather than defiance. (Insert your "evangelicals won't vote for Mormons" speculation here.)

Second, as Ramesh noted over the weekend, it was clear after South Carolina, and arguably earlier, that the nomination fight boiled down to a choice between McCain and Romney. Yet an awful lot of big conservative names waited till the eleventh hour - which in Dobson's case meant the actual day of Super Tuesday - to bestir themselves and attempt to rally the faithful against McCain. Why?

Finally, attacking McCain for his tendency to use "foul and obscene language" seems like the purest form of social conservative self-parody. Particularly given the Bush Administration's record on that front.

Comments

I suppose what you're implying is that the right wing prefers a McCain loss in November to a Romney loss in November, because they can take "credit" for it and demand more power within the party in the future. An alternative (and admittedly unlikely) reading is that McCain does better in November the more the election becomes a referendum on the conservative movement, with McCain playing the role of the reasonable anti-movement Republican. This energizes moderate Republicans who want their party back, and Clinton-hatred does the rest.

Posted by minderbender | February 5, 2008 1:23 PM

'Finally, attacking McCain for his tendency to use "foul and obscene language" seems like the purest form of social conservative self-parody.'

So, he's saying that an ex-Navy guy uses salty language?

Wow.

In related developments Dobson is also upset by the fact that water is wet, the sky is blue, and the sun rises in the East.

What a tool this guy is.

Posted by Adam | February 5, 2008 1:23 PM

Sadly, the real parody is Dobson himself. To think that this personage is/was held up as some sort of spiritual or Christian leader, as a guide to ethical behavior, child-rearing and the like. He seems to be much too enamored of the Prince of this world than the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is the man that had no problem with the adulterer/hypocrite Newt Gingrich, or the foul-mouthed Dick Cheney, or the mass murder of innocents in Iraq. I makes one wonder what the Protestant Reformation was all about in the first place.

Posted by Manfred Arcane | February 5, 2008 1:25 PM

Dobson? Hmm. Name rings a bell... any relation to Frist, Santorum, Allen, Falwell, Robertson,...

Posted by MattF | February 5, 2008 1:32 PM

That a demented piece of shit like Dobson has any influence in the Repiglican Party at all is a huge part of the justification for calling it the Repiglican Party in the first place.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 5, 2008 1:37 PM

Dobson's undorsement is good news for McCain. Every demagogue and reactionary that walks away from him only makes McCain more palatable to moderates and independents.
Talk Radio and Fox have been pulling off a sort of slow-moving putsch of the Republican Party. Perhaps McCain can put down this coup de'etat. Perhaps. The moderate, elected leaders of the GOP still seem intimidated by Roger Ailes and his gang of unelected extremists.

Posted by fougasseu | February 5, 2008 1:52 PM

Exactly right, MattF. Though I have to admit that the Republicans are a lot less funny with the group you mentioned gone.

Posted by Thomas | February 5, 2008 1:54 PM

fougasseu writes: "The moderate, elected leaders of the GOP still seem intimidated by Roger Ailes and his gang of unelected extremists."

Don't kid yourself. The center of the Repiglican Party still supports Dumbya Bush and is right in synch with the Fox gang. McCain's just taking advantage of a small window of opportunity - many GOPers sense they can't win in November unless they fake a move to the middle.

Most Republicans still say Dumbya has been a good president, so they're still living in la-la land.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 5, 2008 2:03 PM

Evangelical social conservatives including Dobson are having a hard time with McCain, though in a general election most of them will come around for the reasons that Lyndsey Graham explains:

“He’s the only conservative who has a prayer of winning,” Graham said, as he emerged from a revolving door and headed towards McCain’s campaign bus, “The Straight Talk Express.” “His 24-year pro-life record didn’t change in his 40s or 50s…He’s reliable. He’s conservative. He’s electable. Social, fiscal conservatism, and electability, commander-in-chief qualities beyond any. If a conservative is worried about the next generation of Supreme Court nominees, like I am, if they are worried about Clinton or Obama becoming president, withdrawing from Iraq, raising your taxes, increasing federal spending, and changing the course of the country, then they ought to get behind John McCain, because this is not an academic debate. This is serious business.”

When sensible voters in the general election take a close look at Obama and Clinton, especially their defeatist view on Irag, McCain will be seen as the better choice, much to the dismay of the netroots wingnuts.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | February 5, 2008 2:35 PM

I suppose what you're implying is that the right wing prefers a McCain loss in November to a Romney loss in November, because they can take "credit" for it and demand more power within the party in the future.

That's what I was thinking too. But it's worth noting that if this is what they're up to, they're playing with fire. If they make a big stink over McCain and he goes on to lose in November, maybe they can take credit and gain more power within the GOP (though their argument would be pretty thin, since if McCain loses it will probably have more to do with Iraq and economic issues than soft support among the religious right).

BUT, if McCain wins an election in a year where a Democratic victory seems all but inevitable, and if he does it in spite of a right-wing revolt, the lesson will be clear: the way for Republicans to win is to ditch the far-right wing of their party. If McCain is seen as winning precisely because he didn't appeal to Dobson et al., that's probably fatal for those guys.

This may explain why they seem to be straddling the fence a little. They're making their "disappointment" with McCain known, but they're not conducting a full-throated campaign against him either. This way, if he loses, they can say I told you so, but if he wins, they can argue that he only did so because they fell in line and held their nose for him.

Posted by Jason C. | February 5, 2008 2:40 PM

Larry moe forgot to take your meds again?

Posted by Mike | February 5, 2008 2:52 PM

One suspects that Moe is taking rather too many "meds."

Posted by Peter Leavitt | February 5, 2008 3:55 PM

As a Democrat, I'd like to think that addled hustler had the power to screw up the GOP more than it is already, but I'm afraid he's largely a creation of the media and is just shouting in the wind.

Posted by Henderstock | February 5, 2008 4:27 PM

No meds at all, Tweedledum and Tweedledumber. Though one suspects that the Bush senior drug program is being used quite frequently by Peter Leavitt, who enjoys "socialism" when it benefits his moldy old ass.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 5, 2008 4:31 PM

Nah Moe, I'm wintering at my place near Capetown that doesn't allow the wonders of Medicare, though it is summer here, a rather richer solace. My absentee ballot has been cast for McCain, an astute, ahem, "Repiglican" party candidate, to use one of your more anmusingly crude terms.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | February 5, 2008 4:43 PM

Dr. Dobson is a wonderful Christian man who has done an enormous amount of good work to help preserve the traditional American family.

I may vote for Mc Cain,if he is nominated,but he is his own worst enemy with his ignoring of the conservative base. His alliance with Huckabee only proves that Huckabee is more a populist than a true conservative. If there was a straight contest between Romney and McCain, Romney would win.

Posted by Ronald Wagner | February 5, 2008 4:54 PM

Dobson said on his broadcast months ago, "I just hope we don't get McCain [as the nominee]."

I've wondered why he would be so opposed to someone pro-life, but it just hit me recently: I'm not sure what it's tax status is, but isn't Focus on the Family one of the groups that was hindered by the portion of McCain-Feingold that restricted special-interest advertising within 45 days (not sure I have that number right) of an election, right? I think a lot of Christian and pro-life groups (like the one in Wisconsin, obviously) can't abide McCain for this very reason.

Now, though, hasn't the Supreme Court tossed that portion of McCain-Feingold? Maybe that's why, rumor has it, the National Right to Life committee is getting ready to endorse McCain, rather than refusing to endorse anyone.

If someone can confirm my hunch in this post, or correct it, I'd be grateful. (MoeLarryandJesus excepted, of course)

Posted by Discman | February 5, 2008 5:23 PM

Peter Leavitt admits: "I'm wintering at my place near Capetown that doesn't allow the wonders of Medicare, though it is summer here, a rather richer solace."

I knew you were an old Boer.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 5, 2008 6:49 PM

Will you guys just stop talking to Moe? Please? Every thread on this blog has to be about him, it seems.

As for Dobson, didn't Focus on the Family recently endorse Romney?

Posted by Seth R. | February 5, 2008 7:24 PM

I write this as a fan of Dobson (generally) and a dedicated social conservative + McCain voter (Michigan)

"I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage,"

Yet he promised to support one should SCOTUS make it a national issue. One of the most ridiculous impulses of conservatives is to react to every radical act of judicial activism with a call for a Federal constitutional amendment. It only legitimizes such rulings and reinforces the idea that whatever SCOTUS says is good law unless you can muster the incredible majorities a C. A. requires.

McCain straddle makes sense in multiple ways both strategic & political. It both supports marriage and federalism It allows the voice of the people to be heard on the State level while boxing the leftist judges in on an issue that is clearly "reasonable" legislation.

McCain Knows he's running for President & this keeps the Media from calling him a far -right panderer before the election.

"voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings,"

Federal funding within the Bush deal of parameters – The discovery of pluripotent stem cells that don’t use embryos makes this a dead issue.

"opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty,"

Well – he opposed the entire package (that included the so called marriage penalty) for a number of reasons and has mended those fences.

"organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings,"

One of the best/most responsible things a Senator could do. One day Republicans may want to threaten a filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee. Voted for Bork, Roberts, Alito,, Thomas.

“and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.”

Ahhh…..My kind of politician!!

Posted by Fitz | February 5, 2008 8:12 PM

Discman - Your correct but multiple groups left & right are affected by that provision. Yes pro-life pro-family groups contested that provision but it’s inside baseball type stuff.

I agree with Peter Leavitt critique (above) come the general people will fall in line. McCain is as authentic a conservative as Bush or Regan.

Posted by Fitz | February 5, 2008 8:24 PM

Fitz says: "McCain is as authentic a conservative as Bush or Regan."

Haven't you been paying attention? Bush has been declared a closet liberal! And you'll all say the same about McCain if he loses in November.

Sheeple, all of you.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 5, 2008 10:52 PM

As far as Dobson goes, he's a big phony. So is much of the "pro-life" movement. No, I don't support abortion on demand. But I'm tired of these "holier-than-thou" types who are too good to support anybody. All they do is oppose, oppose, oppose.

The GOP had five candidates who supports a constitutional amendment against abortion: Hunter, Huckabee, Tancredo, Brownback and Thompson. Four have withdrawn; the fifth has practically no chance of winning the nomination. Where was the "pro-life" movement for any of them? The activists claim to want candidates who support their "values" but once they get those candidates, they do nothing!

Dobson is the worst. He said he would never support Giuliani or McCain. He even had the audacity to say that Fred Thompson was "not a true Christian." Dobson can oppose anybody he chooses, obviously, but he won't support any individual candidate because he's worried about his organization's tax-exempt status. Well, if that's such a concern of his, he can either get out of the political influence-peddling business altogether or disincorporate.

All of you should read Blinded By Might by Cal Thomas and Rev. Ed Dobson (no relation to James), both of whom worked for the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in the 1980s. The authors describe their experiences and the fundamental limitations of using political means to enforce moral change. Both take Dobson to task, and neither of them support abortion or same-sex marriage.

Politically, Dobson is all talk. He's become just another egomaniacal ideologue. Who needs him?

Posted by Joseph D'Hippolito | February 5, 2008 11:19 PM

National Right to Life did back Thompson and the Pro-Lifers I knew backed Brownback. Although with Brownback they backed off because they feared, somewhat rightfully, that he had didn't have enough going for him to win the Presidency or even the Republican nomination.

Posted by Thomas R | February 6, 2008 12:56 AM

Many wonder why James Dobson has not endorsed Huckabee. Is there a more unwavering pro-life candidate? Is there another who has been “born again”? Have any, under spiritual conviction and to their own hurt, withdrawn a news release that would have justifiably reproved an opponent?

Many find it perplexing. Even the secular world is finding something amiss. Time magazine, in a recent article of remarkable spiritual perceptiveness, was stunned by Dobson’s reluctance to make “the natural Christian right choice.”

For months, Dobson has [seemed to favor] … Mitt Romney over Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee … the natural Christian right choice. In December, Dr. Dobson praised a Romney speech, as ‘a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy. His delivery was passionate and his message inspirational.’ Dobson even made a congratulatory phone call to the candidate.

When Romney lost the Iowa caucuses to Huckabee, Dobson attributed the outcome to ‘conservative Christians,’ but he has not warmed to the former governor…. who has spoken of his great and longtime friendship with the Dobsons, [wondering] … why no endorsement appears to be coming…. In … [Dobson’s] citizenlink.com assessments, Huckabee was found wanting in terms of foreign policy and ‘fiscal’ issues…. Romney, on the other hand, was praised as ‘solidly conservative’ and unlikely to renege on that stance.

The question remains: WHY no endorsement? And the answer appears to be Dobson’s the “End Justifies the Means” theology. The “End,” reconciling the lost to the Lord is commendable, but the “Means” are much less so. In order to save the world Dobson had to become more like it. And he seems to have honed the political arts of alliance, compromise, and concession far better than the discipline of unwavering Spirit lead conviction. All things considered, perhaps Dobson HAS given Huckabee the endorsement he needed.
http://popularapostasy.blogspot.com/2008/01/end-justifies-means-theology.html

Posted by C Smith | February 6, 2008 3:28 AM

Dobson leaning towards - while not actually endorsing Romney - shows what the eminent shrink really cares about - power, influence, pride - not a pretty picture for an alleged "Conservative Christian." Somebody once something about "gaining the whole world and losing your soul." Huckabee is actually lucky not to have Dobson's endorsement.

Posted by Manfred Arcane | February 6, 2008 7:46 AM

I'm not sure why Dobson hasn't endorsed Ron Paul, the most pro-life candidate in the race, and the only Republican who opposed the unjust war in Iraq.

Posted by anon4rp | February 6, 2008 2:16 PM

anon4rp writes: "I'm not sure why Dobson hasn't endorsed Ron Paul, the most pro-life candidate in the race, and the only Republican who opposed the unjust war in Iraq."

Dobson doesn't oppose the war in Iraq, last time I checked. This is from a letter from his hate group, "Focus On The Family":

"Where the Iraqi conflict itself is concerned, Dr. Dobson wants it known that his feelings on the subject are intense and deeply held. He realizes that there are many American Christians who do not share his point of view. Nevertheless, his own position is absolutely non-negotiable. As an adherent of the classic Augustinian "just war" theory, he is convinced that this is a case where the biblical and theological justifications for the use of force are fairly obvious. You may be right in asserting that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not "defensive" in the strictest and most narrowly defined sense of the term. However, viewed within the larger context of the global War on Terrorism, the defensive nature of America’s pre-emptive strike against Hussein seems indisputable. Please don’t misunderstand. Dr. Dobson doesn’t like war and killing any better than you do, but he believes that this may be one of those moments in history when we are forced to settle for a trade-off: the lives of the few in exchange for the lives of the many. This is always tragic in the extreme; and yet we must face the fact that even more deaths and greater sufferings would probably have ensued if Saddam had been allowed to pursue his mad course of oppression, aggression, and self-aggrandizement."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 6, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: the lives of the few in exchange for the lives of the many.

"Dr" Dobson apparently flunked 2nd grade arithmetic. Even if he lives in some alternate reality where Iraq really did have a nuke to hand off to some terrorist, fewer people would have died as a result then have died from the Iraq War.

Posted by Jonf | February 6, 2008 3:53 PM

Not to focus on poor Moe again, but doesn't every post of his simply remind you of the following line of reasoning:

1. Senator Obama says he wants to bring all Americans together.

2. I admire Senator Obama a lot.

3. Unfortunately, the platform Senator Obama wants all Americans to unite upon is essentially everything that Moe believes and nothing that anyone else believes.

4. Ooops....

In other words, "a vote for Obama is a vote for Moe?" Oh no -- say it ain't so!

But what is the alternative from among the Democrats? Slightly more nuanced and less doctrinaire positions from the other candidate -- but at what a price when you compare the two individuals apart from their positions? Ooops....

But perhaps we won't need to worry about the Democratic candidate too much if the primary becomes so bitter that it triggers an overflow of that quintessentially ugly Democratic knee-jerk trait of routinely accusing all of their Republican fellow citizens of racism/chauvinism/homophobia, resulting in half the Democrats refusing to vote for Clinton in the general election because her supporters are "obviously" racists or half the Democrats refusing to vote for Obama because his supporters are "obviously" chauvinists, as the case may be. Let's see. That will reduce the Democratic vote from 50% of the electorate to 25%. But wait! Not so fast! Coulter, Limbaugh and their followers will bolt McCain for the Democrats. Supposing they constitute 50% of the Republicans, suddenly the result is (whichever) Democrat 50%, McCain 25%, abstentions 25%. And if the Coulter/Limbaugh faction play their cards right, will they get half the seats in the new cabinet? Or wait -- will the Democrat who loses the primary throw his/her support to McCain -- thereby resulting in a deadlocked election? Stay tuned!

Posted by blackadder | February 6, 2008 9:53 PM

Not to focus on poor Moe again, but doesn't every post of his simply remind you of the following line of reasoning:

1. Senator Obama says he wants to bring all Americans together.

2. I admire Senator Obama a lot.

3. Unfortunately, the platform Senator Obama wants all Americans to unite upon is essentially everything that Moe believes and nothing that anyone else believes.

4. Ooops....

In other words, "a vote for Obama is a vote for Moe?" Oh no -- say it ain't so!

But what is the alternative from among the Democrats? Slightly more nuanced and less doctrinaire positions from the other candidate -- but at what a price when you compare the two individuals apart from their positions? Ooops....

But perhaps we won't need to worry about the Democratic candidate too much if the primary becomes so bitter that it triggers an overflow of that quintessentially ugly Democratic knee-jerk trait of routinely accusing all of their Republican fellow citizens of racism/chauvinism/homophobia, resulting in half the Democrats refusing to vote for Clinton in the general election because her supporters are "obviously" racists or half the Democrats refusing to vote for Obama because his supporters are "obviously" chauvinists, as the case may be. Let's see. That will reduce the Democratic vote from 50% of the electorate to 25%. But wait! Not so fast! Coulter, Limbaugh and their followers will bolt McCain for the Democrats. Supposing they constitute 50% of the Republicans, suddenly the result is (whichever) Democrat 50%, McCain 25%, abstentions 25%. And if the Coulter/Limbaugh faction play their cards right, will they get half the seats in the new cabinet? Or wait -- will the Democrat who loses the primary throw his/her support to McCain -- thereby resulting in a deadlocked election? Stay tuned!

Posted by blackadder | February 6, 2008 9:53 PM

I have no interest in "bringing all Americans together." I want the Repiglicans to suffer the tortures of the politically damned over the next eight years. I want to see the next 5 Supreme Court justice appointments make Rush Limbaugh climb into his Olympic-sized hot tub and open his veins. Assuming the junkie scumbag can still find his veins, of course.

If Obama's elected he'll abandon his efforts to bridge the divide once he finds out that Repiglicans aren't interested, and then the fun begins.

Hillary Clinton already knows this, so if she gets in the bloodshed (rhetorically) begins on Day One.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 6, 2008 10:44 PM

Right arm Moe, Fallwells dead, Robertsons shakes are killing him, wolfmon Richard Roberts has been reduced to begging. Countless other self proclamied saviors were exposed for thier stealing,fagging,whoring and many other general caricture atributes. Thank God this right wing madness seems to be over.

Posted by Rev. Mike | February 7, 2008 5:02 AM

Right arm Moe, Fallwells dead, Robertsons shakes are killing him, wolfmon Richard Roberts has been reduced to begging. Countless other self proclamied saviors were exposed for thier stealing,fagging,whoring and many other general caricture atributes. Thank God this right wing madness seems to be over.

Posted by Rev. Mike | February 7, 2008 5:02 AM

Right arm Moe, Fallwells dead, Robertsons shakes are killing him, wolfmon Richard Roberts has been reduced to begging. Countless other self proclamied saviors were exposed for thier stealing,fagging,whoring and many other general caricture atributes. Thank God this right wing madness seems to be over.

Posted by Rev. Mike | February 7, 2008 5:02 AM

Could someone explain why conservatives still give a hoot about Iraq? That's our tax money being squandered over there.

Posted by Martin | February 7, 2008 8:27 AM

Martin asks: "Could someone explain why conservatives still give a hoot about Iraq? That's our tax money being squandered over there."

They still care because:

1. Their Great Leader tells them too.
2. They get a vicarious thrill out of murder, especially of foreigners.
3. Torture gives them chubbies.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 7, 2008 11:20 AM

"1. Their Great Leader tells them too.
2. They get a vicarious thrill out of murder, especially of foreigners.
3. Torture gives them chubbies."

Interesting, but I am inclined to think it is more along the lines of the Focus On The Family Newsletter you quoted above which is even more scary. Heretics and Papists were massacreing each other in the 1600s using that line of reasoning.

But then, that's Dobson for you. Any other Conservative rationales?

Posted by Martin | February 7, 2008 12:35 PM