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.