Professional bigot James Dobson of Focus on the Family says ixnay on the Ed-fray:
“Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?” Dobson wrote. “He has no passion, no zeal and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!”
Wow, that Dobson's a very sharp guy; we have a lot in common!
Now … I understand that religious conservatives are against abortion and gay folks and all that; they've made that case at great length. But what's up with the slam on McCain-Feingold? Is there some biblical endorsement of soft money of which I'm unaware?
It's especially peculiar since arguably, McCain-Feingold increased the clout of the religious right, at least within the Republican Party. It seems to me that the importance of small donors and social-capital-based political organizing has increased since Bush signed the law. After all, Bush only signed the law because he thought it would kneecap the Democrats, who had indeed become quite dependent on soft money in the Clinton years. But actually, it's enabled the netroots and the religious right, since candidates can't fund their campaigns just by hitting the jackpot with big-spending individuals and organizations … although Mitt Romney is giving it the old college try.
It's a definite pattern that folks who are drawn to one party or another because of one issue or set of issues, will be prone to support the party on other, unrelated issues — even those in which they have no direct stake. (Cf. conservative special-interest parroting on global warming.) But really, I'd love to hear Dobson unpack his stance a little bit: Shall the rich inherit the earth? Or at least our government?
via Political Wire.
“Verily, my Father hast commanded thou, gather unto yourself that which is Ceasar’s, and wrap it in great bundles. Take those bundles unto the changer, so thou can contribute such coin in a large block grant to a political coordinating committee of your choice with no restriction. When thou dost this, thou dost the work of the Lord. When thou can move mountains of gold toward non-candidate-specific political entities hat will send it to close races and targeted candidates, my Father is pleased. For he hath created the fishes in the seas, the sands of the desert, and the loopholes of campaign finance law.”
In which organizations were prohibited from advertising if a candidate agreed or disagreed with their issues within a certain timeframe leading up to an election is where Dobson has a problem. I am far from a Dobson Republican but share his disdain for McCain Finegold as does the ACLU for the same reason. Imagine that Dr. Dobson, and the ACLU on the same page.
when the ACLU lines up in “strange” places. The ACLU isn’t pro-liberal, it’s pro-liberty.
involves owning a gun. The ACLU believes in 9 of the 10 amendments in the bill of rights. That’s the problem.
In your view, does the ACLU take sides against the Second Amendment, or do they just ignore it altogether?
…the 2d amendment has no application. The sad fact that you have, though, is that there is no constitutional requirement for a state to have a state militia.
<
p>
I know that you Mighty Righties want to read the introductory clause out of the 2d amendment, but there is a reason that it is the introductory clause.
n/t
…legal analysis to buttress your comment.
you might want to look at the annotation on the 2d amendment at http://caselaw.lp.fi… I doubt that you are so interested, but others might be. The US Supreme Ct has not even accepted a 2d amendment case since the 1939 Miller decision, so as far as I can tell the constitutional issue isn’t really worth getting animated about.
<
p>
Two more points. One, the reason that the “RKBA” has not been incorporated to the states via the 14th amendment’s DP clause is that the militias were–to some extent–a joint venture between the federal government and the governments of the several states. Look at Article I of the US constitution. According to Article I, the states were to name the officers of their respective militias, but the fedgov was to provide instructions as to how the militia is to be instructed. That was what probably meant by “a well regulated militia,” per the 2d amendment.
<
p>
Two, you may have a very good argument about allowing private ownership of firearms. But it is not a constitutional argument. It is a governmental policy argument. If you would frame it in policy terms (example: “I need this kind of firearm for that kind of service”) you might get some attention. The problem is, that most of the noise coming from the pro-gun lobby doesn’t frame it that way. They cry, I want my constitutional rights, when whether the rights that they are crying for are constitutional, is dubious. Argue it on policy grounds. NB: I’m actually more sympathetic to your side than you might believe. But argue the policy, not the constitutional issues.
<
p>
I wrote here a couple of days ago that I know how to produce a “saturday night special” and a “pipe bomb” and I really do. I also know how to mould 58cal lead bullets for my father’s musket (JoeTS does, too, apparently). The issue that I was raising is that, if someone wants to generate a destructive device, it is actually very easy to do so. You don’t need a mass produced gun to be able to shoot up things.
NOBODY is living up to his standards.
<
p>
Which is perhaps the best thing I have heard about American political life in lo, these many years.
His standards literally involve the Second Coming.
God rewards the virtuous with wealth (as broadly understood). This dovetails with the conservative view that wealth is achieved in the morally bracing environment of competition by disciplined, focused achievers.
…James Dobson was abused as a child by his overbearing mother and his itinerent preacher father. There was an interesting artical about his childhood a few months ago on (I believe it was) a Denver magazine’s web site, 5280. I don’t have the link with me here in Germany.
I couldn’t find a copy of the article on the 5280 web site, but a copy of the article is at http://www.rickross….
Check out this Focus on the Family creation, Women’s Voices Against Cloning.
<
p>
It might not have ever been deployed, since it is on some strange server and tucked in the “/images” directory, and perhaps unfinished. We found it semi-randomly. And the awesomely-named “Watch, Listen, and Learn” section has a note saying “As soon as the resources for this page are available, we will post them here. Please stay tuned!”
<
p>