I’m not sure it’s worth the effort. Dobson seems to have said his peace on the issue:
Sen. John McCain said Tuesday he hopes to patch things up with conservative Christian leader James Dobson, who recently said he wouldn’t support the Republican’s presidential bid under any circumstances.
In a radio interview with KCBI, a Dallas Christian station, Dobson argued that McCain didn’t support traditional marriage values and complained that the campaign finance legislation he co-authored hurt Christian broadcasters.
“Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances,” Dobson said on KCBI.
The 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation stifled “Christian radio” and “kept us from telling the truth right before elections,” Dobson contended. “He is not in favor of traditional marriage and I pray that we will not get stuck with him.”
During a campaign stop in Columbia, S.C., McCain said: “I’m obviously disappointed and I’d like to continue and have a dialogue with Dr. Dobson and other members of the community.”
“I’m happy to say that I’ve established a dialogue with a number of other leaders,” including the Rev. Jerry Falwell, “Purpose Driven Life” author Rick Warren and Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I really respect James Dobson, and Lord knows the problems I have with Sen. McCain. However, for Dobson to say that John McCain is “not in favor in traditional marriage” is really hitting below the belt.
Sen. McCain does not favor the pie-in-the-sky solution of a federal constitutional amendment, choosing instead to focus on the realistic goal of passing state constitutional bans.
It is beneath Mr. Dobson to smear John McCain in this manner simply because he favors a different strategy in defending traditional marriage. Of course, that’s not really what this is about is it?
January 17th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Kavon,
Of course, that’s not really what this is about is it?
Of course not. I agree with you and suspect that McCain wants to try and smooth over the bad blood between the two, but it really does seem like a lost cause. But I think the fact that Jerry Falwell and McCain managed to make up says that McCain’s lukewarm courting of the social conservatives might manage to sway a few voters. After all, who would’ve thought that McCain would have managed to snatch Marlys Popma from under Romney’s nose.
January 17th, 2007 at 1:26 am
It is possible to advocate both methods. One is certainly a lot harder than the other…and McCain has very happily shown the religious right that he will not stick his neck out or spend political capital on their behalf…quite the opposite.
January 17th, 2007 at 1:28 am
yikes, there I go with late night syntax tagging bloopers!
January 17th, 2007 at 1:37 am
I got your back Murph!
January 17th, 2007 at 1:58 am
murphy,
McCain has very happily shown the religious right that he will not stick his neck out or spend political capital on their behalf…quite the opposite.
The way I feel is that at least McCain is honest about his feelings. It’s a lot better than President Bush who has gotten near unwavering social conservative support for 6 years and yet has done absolutely nothing for them. In fact, you could even argue that Bush has made the so-con movement weaker, because now various other GOP segments are trying to marginalize their influence. That’s part of the reason why their is such a longing for a credible conservative alternative.
January 17th, 2007 at 3:32 am
LJ: It’s a lot better than President Bush who has gotten near unwavering social conservative support for 6 years and yet has done absolutely nothing for them.
Well, I wouldn’t say absolutely nothing, but it would be close to it.
To be blunt about it, Bush really didn’t deliver much for any of the major constituancies of the Republican Party except the National Security one. He poked the law-and-order crowd in the eye with his amnesty-first bill. He stabbed the small government crowd in the back with the prescription entitlement. He signed every spending bill sent his way to the dismay of the fiscal conservatives. And he angered nearly everyone when he nominated Harriet Miers.
What a fiasco that was.
Looking back at Bush’s Presidency, I can definitely agree with the many commentators that have remarked that Bush was never really a much of a conservative. He had an conservative outlook on national security. That’s about it. His heart wasn’t in it for the rest of it.
Do we really want another one like that in John McCain? That would just about kill the Republican Coalition that Reagan put together. Is that what we really want?
January 17th, 2007 at 3:41 am
Mark, I agree that the Bush presidency has been a disaster for republicans, and probably conservatives in general. That is why it is important to nominate someone who is competent, not someone who just checks all the boxes for the appropriate interest groups.
Dobson doesn’t care about competence. His biggest concern is keeping gay guys from getting married. That is all he is worried about.
We as a party need to realize that there are so many more important issues out there that need to be fixed, like entitlement programs, national security, the federal budget. When it comes to those issues, McCain has the right positions.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Murphy–what would you have George W. do that he didn’t do? Be realistic in your answer please.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Al–so how has the Bush presidency been a disaster for Republicans? I suppose a Gore or Kerry presidency would have been better.
January 17th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Ah…but what about when benfits for gay “friends” get tacked on to budgets everywhere, or when the taxpayer pays for 90% of the abortions? Scream “fiscally responsible” then, will you?
January 17th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Grant, I’m guessing you meant someone else in your #8. But I never cease to talk, so I’ll just answer that as if it had been directed at me.
His fiscal policy was a train wreck on budget balancing and run-away spending. His energy policy was woefully short-sighted at a time when supply is going down and demand is going up, not to mention the politics of pouring money into the middle east. And I’m not fond of his work on immigration reform and entitlements, but that can’t be entirely rested upon his shoulders alone.
Kavon, thanks buddy!
January 17th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I wouldn’t use the term ‘disaster for republicians’ to describe Bush’s Presidency. While there is no question that he has hurt the party in the short term, the problems he has caused are not irreversible.
Yet.
January 17th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Yes, I would have to say in the long term, the two Bush Presidencies will have done more harm than good to the conservative and Republican causes. I love our current President, voted for him twice, but if he were running again I’d vote for the other guy now. It’s time to get someone in there with fiscal restraint, vision casting ability, and the ability to lead his party well.
The Republican Coalition that Reagan assembled is splintering and we need someone who can bring together all those factions once again – fiscal, social, and hawkish conservatives being the biggest three groups of that coalition. One or two out of the three isn’t enough for my vote.
January 17th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
A Gore or Kerry Presidency would have been a lot worse for the nation, Grant, but that’s a straw man argument. I don’t regret my vote for Bush in 2004, as it was the best choice we had at the time. But perhaps a Gore or Kerry Presidency would have been better for the GOP in the long term? Or if not, perhaps we could have pressured Bush to lead more effectively? Or take his veto pen out every once in awhile? Or perhaps we could have taken someone else in 2000?
January 17th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
You hit the nail on the head with that one, HeavyM. It is really time to move on to someone else.
January 17th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
In 2004, Bush was the better of two bad choices. Now it’s time for somebody who’s GOOD.