It’s not the candidates I’m talking about, but the Christian Right. Earlier today I mentioned that Gary Bauer had calmy criticized James Dobson for his email. It was obvious that it wouldn’t be the end of it.
Here’s an email David Brody recieved from Dr. Richard Land, the President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (which is part of the influential Southern Baptist Convention), with a little harsher tone than Bauer’s criticism of Dobson:
“David, the problem with these cotton picking conviction politicians is that they follow their convictions and Fred Thompson has been for a long long time a very staunch federalist and it’s hard to convince conviction politicians to change their minds.”
“It’s (Thompson’s marriage amendment position) a problem. I think Southern Baptists have an ethical issue in which they need to deal. They may face a situation where they have a choice of three candidates. One they agree with 95% of the time, one they agree with 80 percent of the time and one they agree with 10% of the time. It may come to pass that they’re faced with a choice.”
Fred Thompson grew up in a very modest means in a small town in America just like Ronald Reagan grew up in very modest means in a small town in Illinois. You acquire not only an understanding of but a respect for everyday folk when you come from the background that you don’t get otherwise and people sense it. That this is a guy who respects me, a guy who understands that we are the backbone of this country, we are the salt of the Earth and he not only understands us, he’s one of us. He’s a successful one of us but he’s one of us and they trust a guy like that. They give a guy like that a larger margin of error. Nobody gets everything right but its core values. My assessment is that this guy is much like Reagan including his Teflon quality. The press has been beating up with him for these types of gaffes and he continues to climb in the polls.”
Some extremely strong words about Dobson from both Richard Land and Gary Bauer. Whether you agree with Dobson or Land or don’t like any of them; with the failing health of Billy Graham, Pat Robertson’s slow slide from prominence, and the death of Jerry Falwell, we are witnessing a power struggle between the religious powers that be. One one side, you have Land, Bauer, Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and some others. On the other side, you have James Dobson, most likely Robertson, and others who have remained in the background thus far. Dobson was always slippery in his support for Thompson, going back to the “not a Christian” remarks in April.
All I’ll say about Dobson is that he should be more careful about condemning someone for their religion. He can support whoever he wants, and voice that support on issues, but to question someone’s religious commitment over church attendence is out of line.
The Religious Right has been dealt with many blows to their credibility by having more than one hypocrite exposed in their ranks- Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Paul Crouch, and Ted Haggart, to name a few. Those who cast stones…
Remember the impeachment proceedings that effectively ended the careers of two Republican Speakers? Going after Clinton while doing the same thing themselves, and being publicly humiliated?
September 24th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
i consider dobson a brother in Christ. And as a fellow evangelical, I was pretty irate to hear him bash Thompson like that. I’m glad i’m not the only one.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Robertson has always been very pragmatic. I think he’ll support Thompson, if he thought his support would help.
Regardless, I’m hoping that these people will tear each other apart. A house divided against itself…
September 24th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I don’t care who Dobson supports, but the way he went about it was dishonest. That’s my problem with the whole thing. And just like his remarks in April, this will likely have a backlash at him, and he’ll come out and apologize again, saying he was taken out of context, then he’ll take back his apology like he did in his email.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
robertson has said some pretty loopy rubbish in the past:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson
September 24th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
I’m not a fan of a lot of the powerbrokers in religion. See Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, Paul Crouch, the list goes on. The power many of them get shades their judgement and ultimately turns many into the very thing they preach against.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
can dobson face legal action if he sent this email out to employees at focus on the family?
September 24th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Yes. He just got out of a mess where he endorsed Bush in 2004.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
First, don’t even try to compare Dobson to those other “powerbrokers” — hardly anyone has done more for the social conservative cause than Dobson. Land is *nowhere* near Dobson’s stature. Dobson is standing strong for social conservative principles.
Second, Land was always a Thompson backer.
Third, Fred skipped the Values Voter Debate, which infuriated many many social conservatives.
Fourth, “but to question someone’s religious commitment over church attendence is out of line” is really not out of line because this is one of the main indicators that one is a serious social conservative. A bunch of Christians will turn away from Thompson just from hearing that one fact.
Fifth, how was Dobson being dishonest?
Dobson is with the social conservative base on this one. Take a look at Joe Carter, a Thompson supporter who is recently wavering due to Thompson’s opposition of FMA as well as his remarks regarding Schiavo:
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003965.html
In all fairness, Thompson is pretty good. He’s just not the social conservative choice.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Jim Bakker was a liberal-leaning guy.
Besides Churches don’t sniff out hypocrites well enough. No use judging Christians on the hypocrites that decide to embarrass them.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
you know, this really upsets me. dobson supports bush in 2004, but guess what? the other half of the ticket -Cheney- was very much opposed to an amendment to the constitution banning same sex marriage.
does not compute! does not compute! DOES NOT COMPUTE
September 24th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
sampo: The vice president doesn’t set the agenda, so it didn’t really matter.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Any critism of Thompson over religion pales in comparison to the “hits” that Romney is taking and has to defend. After all that we have seen already, some would be astonished that someone would be attacked due to their religion or perceived lack of it? Come on…
I imagine there is a small pocket of people who are infuriated over Dobson’s remark against Thompson and at the same time will not vote for Romeny because he is Mormon. That is laughable!
In fact, I would go as far as to say there are some people who live a less Christian life than Romney and won’t vote for him because they they don’t believe he is a Christian. That’s even more absurd!
At some point the Republicans need to get it together and coalesce behind a candidate for the right reasons.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
wise up. if bush dies, cheney is the 44th president.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
12, the road to the white house isn’t paved with accusations of bigotry.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
“Live a less Christian life than Romney.”
I wonder what your definition of “Christian” is there?
If you mean moral say so. If not are you suggesting Jews aren’t morally qualified to be President?
I hate it when people associate “Christian” with the current view of morality when Christianity is much more radical than any of that.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2RkSESmSRU
September 25th, 2007 at 12:13 am
[...] http://race42008.com/2007/09/24/this-could-get-ugly/ [...]
September 25th, 2007 at 12:22 am
I love how Reagan was able ot pretend he was someone from small town America and of modest means.
He lived in Hollywood and hung out and partied with people like Billionaire Walter Annenberg, movie stars Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, Elizabeth Taylor, Claudette Colbert, etc…
His wife was friends with the tops in the fashion world and wore gowns and jewelry that probably cost more than some of Reagan’s voters made in a year.
But he was just this small town guy? Amazing.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:26 am
I apologize if my words were interpreted differently than I intended.
I simply was pointing out the hypocracy of some who would not vote for Romney because they feel he is not Christian yet live a “radical” (as you have pointed out) form of Christianity.
I think it is common knowledge that there are those who are not going to vote for Romney because he is Mormon. Isn’t that the bigotry? That’s all I was pointing out.
Econ Grad Student – I don’t have a definition of Christianity, but some people do and their definition does not include Mormons, regardless of how closely that person lives their life to the Bible. I don’t think Jews have a problem with Romney being Mormon, it is the “christians” that do. That’s all that I was highlighting.
I know posts do not convey tone and intent, but I hope I was able to clarify it better.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:35 am
jack,
it has been my personal observation that romney has faced very little opposition on the basis of his faith. if you want evidence i can point to the massive amounts of youtubes that oppose romney. precious few mention his faith.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Even if you accept (what I believe to be) authentic Christianity.
FDT is no better than Romney.
FDT is hypocrite and Romney is a heretic. Who am I to distinguish between that. In fact what does that have to do with voting.
I’d rather have a heretic who doesn’t pretend to be orthodox rather than a phony Christian who uses insincere “God-talk” to gain votes. That’s the height of blasphemy.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:44 am
I strongly oppose any attempt to use insincere “God-talk” to appeal to Christians. It is blasphemy by definition. Why do so many Christians demand blasphemy from their non-Christian politicians.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:45 am
sampo
I agree that there is plenty of opposition to Romney that has nothing to do with his faith. However, I also believe that some opposition, because of his faith, isn’t neglible.
And I only brought it up because of the slant of this thread. Also, there may be some people who are emboldened to not mince words and express their concern regarding his religion but I believe most people (I am not necessarily saying this is a large number), that have a problem, wouldn’t come out and say it.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:48 am
er..negligible
September 25th, 2007 at 1:08 am
It is politically incorrect to be bigoted. And politically correct (albeit bigoted) people do find really lame darts to throw at Romney, and work overtime to throw lame darts. But when pressed, the bigotry does comes out. See it often on posts and blogs. And Jack has a really good point, why don’t those same people defend the religious persecution that Romney is getting, ESPECIALLY from certain crowds. Don’t pretend the religious persecution is minimal. It comes up quite frequently all over the internet.
Dobson has been saying really positive things about Romney too. I’ll bet that rankles certain crowds. If Gingrich doesn’t run, he’ll likely back Romney. There will be some ripples over that.
Thompson has had some very hypocritical stuff going on in his life, and it would be overly bias for Dobson not to see it.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:39 am
I think the difficulty appears because plenty of conservative Christians managed to convince themselves far in advance of his actual entry that Thompson was the conservative savior. Thompson’s protracted blank slate stage allowed them to project everything they found lacking in the current field onto him. I hung out with these types at law school, and I’ve found their support for him confusing from the start. Dobson’s the first one to really try to burst the bubble, so of course he gets this kind of response.
You know what else, I really think it does have alot to do with religion – specifically Romney’s. As I said, I hung out with the conservative Christians at law school. They’re really the only option to find friends for a Mormon going to school in the south. We never talked too much about religion, but later as I independently came to grasp the most basic nature of the theological divide (I was mostly raised in the Western Mormon cocoon so I didn’t find the need to address the issue earlier) I came to recognize in retrospect some stiffness and discomfort of my friends if the discussion drifted too close to the issue. I’ve also sensed that same stiffness when it came to Romney, even in the early days of the campaign (we were all in FedSoc and Romney spoke at one event well before he declared, but it was clearly his early stump speech). I think they felt some relief when Thompson started getting seriously floated – He’s southern, presumably conservative, and not Mormon.
In support of that, there’s been some other posts and articles recently on the net about why Romney isn’t getting traction nationally. The best explanation I’ve seen is his presentation style isn’t suited to some audiences, especially the south. Supposedly it’s because he’s too CEO like. I don’t think of his style as a CEO. When I’ve heard him talk, I tend to think “Mormon.” He thinks like me. He talks like I would (except he’s got additional MBA vocabulary). His culture, his mannerisms, his natural speaking rhythm, all belong in Utah. He learned all that not in his prep schools in Michigan, or at Harvard Business School, or among the Boston elite, but at sacrament meeting and Sunday school and boy scouts. We talk differently from evangelicals*. Mormons know when the speaker isn’t Mormon, even when the topic has nothing to do with religion. I suspect the same is true for evangelicals.
* Another side note, we pray differently too. Remember the Christmas decision video the Romney campaign put out? Lot’s of people were weirded out by the prayer in it. To many it sounded phony and prepared for the camera. That’s because it wasn’t a mainline Christian prayer. To my Mormon ears, it was probably the most sincere part of that video.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:17 am
One thing that shocked me when on this post is a quote from Sampo:
“i consider dobson a brother in Christ. And as a fellow evangelical, I was pretty irate to hear him bash Thompson like that.”
The reason I was shocked are all the RIDICULOUS overtime efforts he makes in bashing Romney. Constantly. This is very telling. So Sampo considers Dobson a brother in Christ and as such, he should not be bashing Thompson, and he feels irate. But Romney bashing is not only OK, he engages in it full time, full-swing. The hypocrisy is glaring. And you want me to conclude that his efforts are not influenced by religious bigotry? Politically correct (by choosing criticisms carefully) bigotry?
One of the reasons the hypocrisy is glaring:
Thompson has led a playboy’s life, very publicly. He is NOT overly religious. He was a lobbyist, a trade that fuels one of our biggest government corruptions and cause of imbalance. Thompson list of why he does not fit into the Conservative Christians ideal is in bold type. Dobson is being truthful. Pro Grata hit it on the nose – Thompson was a “fill-in-the-blanks” candidate and people overestimated what he rally stood for. SOME conservative Christians cannot accept Romney despite his very conservative, Christian life because of their urban legend beliefs that he is not Christian (and that is a whole separate discussion). And treat him as if he were anti-Christian. The same Romney that would testify of the Savior and his atoning sacrifice on national television as a presidential candidate. Fortunately there are a lot of Evangelicals who regard charity above theological differences / bible bashing and do not treat Romney in the un-Christian way that some have justified to themselves.
Romney has the most squeaky clean, religious, stalwart life ever, with the most beautiful, successful family ever. And he’ll be the first to admit his family is not perfect, yet how many of us would love to have experienced family success like that? He may not be theologically the Christian Conservatives dream, but on social and political issues, he holds all the same values dear and lived them his whole entire life. He holds regular family prayer and is on his knees in personal prayer multiple times a day. And it shows.
And Dobson is a good, sincere, conscientious man. Those who attempt to paint him otherwise because he doesn’t agree with their political views, lose a lot of credibility. But I do see a repeating pattern of slinging mud at good men and cannot respect your judgement.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:48 am
You guys missed the whole point of this post.
It’s not Thompson/Romney/Gingrich that is the point, it’s the fact that you are starting to see a power struggle within the Christian Right. Sampo was right in his assessment that if Dobson sent this email to anyone within Focus on the Family, then he’s up for IRS investigations again- while just being cleared for doing the same thing in 2004.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Wait a minute Shawnie, I call a it like I see em. I have taken up for Romney on many occasions for his religion.
Did you jackasses forget that it was Dobson who was pushing the Romney Porno at Marriott thing? Where was your outrage?
DOBSON IS BACKING GINGRICH. That’s a symbol of morality for you.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Did Land’s use of “cotton picking” jump out at anyone else. He uses the term as an adjective to describe politicians. Isn’t that, uhm, racist?
September 25th, 2007 at 9:30 am
dblagent,
No, it’s a common term used in Tennessee, where Land is from as well.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Wondering who Land meant when he said “10%”. We know 80% is Rudy, since he was the one who has been saying it all the time, of a sort here, “We are same on 80% of issues, and disagree on 20%”.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Tommy (#3), to be fair, Fred was one who said thus in front of the South Carolinians as reported by Washington Post: “Fred Thompson said he attends church when he visits his mother in Tennessee but does not belong to a church or attend regularly at his home in McLean, Va., just outside Washington. The actor and former senator, who was baptized in the Church of Christ, said he gained his values from ’sitting around the kitchen table’”. So far within the Religious Right, there are many people who claim he is Christian, but they do need to re-evaluate their thinking of him on that. I am not saying they should not vote for him because he is not Christian enough. It may not matter as much to many of us. What I am saying is that Religious Right was led to believe Fred is more than he actually is. Both Baer and Land are at fault for doing so. If they both had stayed mum on his Christianity, and instead, focus on his conservatism, then fine. But they did not.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Dblagent007 (#29), no, “cotton picking” is not racial. The picking of cotton is among the most difficult process argiculturally, so it is implied here that Dobson has to dig around quite deep to find “minor” faults of Fred.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:42 am
SGS, Good point. But I don’t remember anyone saying anything about Thompson going to church all the time to make Dobson think any different. So I don’t see how he was led on.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Tommy
“jackasses”? I must be a jane-ass since I’m a woman.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Shawnie,
You go after Thompson for his playboy life, but then Dobson is likely backing Gingrich, whose been divorced 2 times and had affairs both times? You see the hypocracy. That’s what perosonally ticks me off.
For the record, I criticized Dobson when he ran those ads on his radio show attacking Romney on the Marriott/porn thing as well.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Tommy,
By the way, I did rebut the Marriot Porno thing extensively. Outrage was not the emotion. Clarification on reality and addressing what were reasonable expectations in that corporate situation was the response actually.
It may not have been on this forum. And outrage isn’t really an effective response. Reason and common sense work better. And I’m not going to get mad at Dobson for an opinion once held, especially since he has backtracked some and is warming up to Romney.
And I’m not going to get too offended over the jackass thing. It doesn’t really fit. We were polite enough.
I am interested in the legitimate reasons why people like Thompson. I had no opinions on him until I watched him several times, how he carries himself, how he responds to pretty basic-knowledge questions. He doesn’t seem like the best choice to me. But that is just one small perspective from one small sampling of observation. I’m willing to understand what others see, since I may have to vote for him come general election.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Could you clarify what you mean by hypocrisy in post #36. I’m not backing up Gingrich. So were you referring to Dobson as being hypocritical? Has he officially backed Gingrich up? As far as I know, it is speculation at this point…
September 25th, 2007 at 11:48 am
…So now “core values†is what size town you come from, not what you believe about the sanctity of Marriage or whether or not you practice your faith. Instead of going to church on Sundays I’ll go visit a small town from now on. ‘cause I want to have “core valuesâ€. Is it just me or is the support of Thompson by some religious right figures baffling? I think they would rather have somebody posing as a Protestant who supports their values, than have them really be a Mormon who supports their values.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I am not a fan of the ‘political sway’ some of these religious leaders seem to love to embrace. Although, I do think they are free to do this, I think it will backfire on them as we might be seeing right now. For heavens sake, these guys who are supposed to represent Christ’s message are bickering publicly about which candidate is most religious. It just doesn’t seem appropriate or good for Christianity.
Government and religion too closely aligned really is bad for both.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
It really angers me that Richard Land talks about his moral values and then acts as if Thompson
is the guy we should get behind. Land doesn’t stand on Principles but on probabilites. He will support any of the candidates running if he thinks they can win. However, he should support Huckabee who believes in the things Land says he believes in. And also, if Land truly believed in what he preached then he would believe that God can make things happen even if they don’t seem likely. And I am not saying that God has chosen Huckabee to
be president, but I am saying that Land is basically a fiddle that doesn’t mind who gets to play it.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
James,
I’m glad you’re not saying God chose Mike to win, because I’m starting to get the impressions that some Huck fans are as nutty as Ron Paulers. By the way, Thompson and Land are childhood friends, and Land will not publicly endorse Thompson.
Shawnie,
Yes. I didn’t accuse you of hypocricy. I was accusing Dobson. What bugs me about Dobson was his long public apology to Thompson after claiming he was “not a Christian” in April. And in his recent leaked email, he was gloating about how he was right that Thompson wasn’t a Christian. I do find it a little hypocritical of Romney supporters to stand up for Dobson when they were bashing him when Dobson ran an ad that targeted Mitt Romney to blame for the Marriott porno story. Now that he bashes Thompson, it’s ok, but not then.
jcutler,
You are talking to a small town person of faith who doesn’t regularly attend church. I am skeptical of some of the fakes and holier than thou’s that overrun the population that attends here. But I am no less Christian for that.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
And yes, he’s the one saying Newt is forgiven after he came on his show, so Newt’s ok by his book. I wonder if what Newt’s attendance record is? Actually, I’ve met Newt a few times and I love the guy, so I’m not going there.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I never bashed Dobson, then or now. But have to admit, he is guilty of “flip-flop”. I’m not a huge Dobson fan, but have some friends that are. Dobson has done a lot of good in this world and he does stand for something, even with his flaws. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. And I do remember Romney people taking negative stuff Dobson said to task, but not Dobson himself. There is a difference, right?