Dobson pulls Grayson endorsement, apologizes, and endorses Paul
Here's Dobson's press release on Rand Paul's site:
Well, hello everyone. This is Dr. James Dobson, speaking as a private individual. Have you ever made an embarrassing mistake? I did just that last week.
Wow...an apology in the political arena. I might be interested in voting for Dobson now! ;-)
I was given misleading information about the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent. But now I’ve received further information from OB/GYN’s in Kentucky whom I trust, and from interviewing the candidate himself. I now know that he is avidly pro life. He believes that life begins at conception...
If I lived in Kentucky, I would vote for Dr. Rand Paul. Would you consider sending him to the U.S. Senate to shake things up in Washington?
That's welcome news after hearing so many "conservatives" endorse the likes of Arlen Specter (back in the day), Mike Sodrel, Dan Coats, Trey Grayson, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, John McCain, and am I forgetting any others?
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 12:00 PM
16 Comments
16 Comments:
I have always loved and respected Dr. Dobson and this is proof that he is a man of true character.
I had slight reservation about Rand Paul; not quite sure where he stood on this issue, but now feel completely confident in voting for him.
This tea party movement is gaining momentum for sure -- I have an "Independent" friend in KY who changed party affiliation just to vote for Paul.
Appreciate this post Eric, and a huge Thanks you!! to Dr. James Dobson!!!
I understand politically why Rand has to do this sort of thing. However, my respect for Paul is largely derivative, in that he benefits from being his father's son. Well, Ron Paul would never get the endorsement of James Dobson.
I've written about my own "adultery" with the so-called "Religious Right" (http://dowblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/whats-wrong-with-religious-right.html) and I think Rand would be better off not owing that faction anything. I say this as someone who could be legitimately be called a theocrat.
I do hope that Rand's foreign policy views turn out to more like dear-old-dad than Dick Cheney, but I do wonder. It is long past time to think about the consequences that stem from our undue alliances with various nations, including those near and dear to the hearts of many Christians. That relationship is also near the heart of Mr. Dobson, who I gather refuses to endorse the likes of John Hostetler because of Hostetler's unrelenting opposition to Middle East wars and his criticism of Israel.
This is in no way a slap at Dobson, by the way. He's an honorable man and here has admitted to being snookered by GOP elites. I only wish he had figured that out twenty years ago.
"I understand politically why Rand has to do this sort of thing"
What does this mean, Darrell? Surely you're not suggesting that Dr. Dobson is being snookered once again, this time by Libertarians who have highjacked the Republican party and are pandering to "conservatives" in order to gain political power.
Another question: What does one have to say/do/believe to be considered the Religious Right?
As far as the last 20 years, what choice did conservatives realistically have in the voting booth? Anarchist libertarians who favor "state's rights" to kill tiny babies -- or the socialist/Commie Dems.
It's possible that Rand Paul is a Pretender; however, I'm willing to take him at his word and see what happens.
It's high time for Afghanistan and Iraq to be over.
Israel has a right to exist.
PianoMom,
As I said, I think that Mr. Dobson is a credible and decent man and what he’s done here is admirable. How many public figures stand up and say, “I was wrong”?
Rand Paul has a difficult task politically. It is clear that the “Tea Party” movement has various factions and he has the task of putting them together. I wish him nothing but the best and think his example is something that could be followed. Unfortunately I think ultimately that disputes over immigration and foreign policy will lead to an implosion of that movement, but this likely won’t occur until the 2012 primaries.
I guess my concern with the Religious Right has been two-fold. First, on the whole the movement was/is too enamored of federal/national “solutions” to problems that are primarily cultural in nature. Second, they fused themselves to the Neoconservative movement and served as the battering ram, politically speaking, that destroyed an older form of conservatism, and older form being (potentially) resurrected by the likes of Paul.
Sorry to quote myself, but in the link above, I said this (my rhetoric is perhaps a tad tougher than necessary):
“The neocon/paleocon civil war of the 1990's provided an opportunity for authentic conservatives to take back their movement from Trotskyite interlopers and castaways from traditional liberalism. (Pat) Buchanan and his movement represented limited government bound by the Constitution, a foreign policy that put America First, and support for immigration and cultural policies that might have maintained our integrity as a coherent people.
On the other side were imperious neoconservatives, conflating Israeli and American interests, driven to create a Pax Americana at the point of a bayonet. The neocons were aligned with business interests, those who believe in the myth of homo economicus, who sought mass immigration as a means of keeping wages low, and who see tax policy and tort reform as more important than the murder of unborn children.
In this battle of ideas and principles, where did the Christian Coalition along with the Dobson/Falwell/Robertson axis come down? They sided with the Big Business and Big Government faction, i.e., the neocons. They sided with imperialistsic, big-government, warmongers, who care nothing for their issues. In short, in the name of pragmatism and relevance it was the so-called Christian Right that, aligned with neoconservatives and the liberal press corps, swamped what remained of the conservative movement. Evangelical voters were the instrument wielded by the GOP establishment, a rent-a-mob that ultimately destroyed the last remnants of bona fide conservatism and constitutionalism.”
The policies of the prior administration—never ending war, abuses of civil liberties, “free” prescription drugs for those on Medicare, an expansion of federal oversight of education, subsidies to Planned Parenthood, etc.—were all effectively blessed by the support given politically by religious conservatives, who never abandoned Bush.
First of all, let me say that I am indebted to Libertarians for providing me an education on American imperialism, war-mongering and the "military industrial complex", corporate interests which enslave poor countries internationally, etc. I have become increasingly aware of the grievances you list and am very concerned about them. This is what draws me to libertarianism ideals.
Now, let me explain what repels me
- the idea that abortion is a cultural issue; to me it is a justice issue. Actually every issue turns out to be "cultural" in nature but justice issues should be dealt with by legislation.
-- the idea that all wars are unnecessary acts of power-wielding/grabbing aggression and could somehow be prevented if everyone would just mind their own business
--worship of "freedom" as the answer to all of our problems. Freedom, in and of itself, will not solve problems. Freedom, exercised within the boundaries of morality, will; but we all know that you can't legislate morality.
For example, if rich people were more moral (gave more money away) and poor people were more moral (would work) -- we could eliminate federal intervention and welfare.
As it is, we wrongfully steal and redistribute.
In any case, I still don't see how the Religious Right had too many good options over the last 20 years. Conscience will not permit an Evangelical/Catholic to vote for politicians who view abortion as states' rights (Lib) or human rights (Dem), so I guess in that sense, conservatives were "played" by the GOP establishment. Hopefully, that can change.
Appreciate your comments
Some good discussion here.
I view leaving abortion to the states as the Constitutional thing to do because it is "just" another heinous flavor of murder, and murder is one of the many crimes which the Constitution delegates to the states to determine how best to handle.
Bill,
So are you saying that the "Union" (our country) would/should tolerate states that do not have laws on their books to hold proven murder accountable.
Also, in the previous post, I forgot to say what I love best about Libertarian philosophy
-- Austrian Economics!!!!
I love Austrian economics too, PianoMom.
Yes, much as it would sadden me to see murder tolerated in my own state, or in any other, to me it is not worth violating the Constitution to grow the federal government enough that it can force its way over the states on this issue, as well as many others that by the Tenth Amendment are lawfully left to the states.
Dr. Ron Paul touches on this point in the following article.
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
I guess a question I would ask is whether you believe the federal government should be limited by the U.S. Constitution or not.
I believe it should be so limited. I see nothing in the Constitution that permits the U.S. government to have anything to do with punishing murder.
Our national government is one of specific responsibilities that were delegated to it by the states to perform on their behalf.
Do you see punishing murder as one of the responsibilities that the states listed in the Constitution that they were delegating to the federal government to perform for them?
The Tenth Amendment spells out to me that the crime of murder, no matter the age of the victim, is intended to be addressed individually by each state, just as it was before Roe v. Wade.
There are many heinous acts that the states purposely guarded for their own jurisdiction when they created the national government to be their agent for very limited purposes.
That is as it must be if we are to avoid (and / or roll back) the tyranny of an overreaching central government.
I understand this view but disagree with the Constitutional interpretation. The Constitution speaks for itself in guaranteeing the citizens of this country *Life* therefore, on this basis, any state which passes laws violating this freedom for any citizen would be "unconstitutional". Passing an amendment to this end would be perfectly harmonious with our Constitutional republic.
The idea that any of us should accepting murder in the name of preserving Constitutional freedom is a bit paradoxical and inane.
I disagree with you, Dr. Paul, Darrell, and probably Dr. Schansberg.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, knowing we will never be able to support each other in the political arena until we can get this lined up somehow. Maybe someday, you all will see the light :-)
I think we are agreed on the desired outcome, PianoMom -- a return to government protection for life, including those not born yet.
You may be right that we just need to agree to disagree on the best means.
Here's one more article for your consideration, and a couple of quotations from it.
Ron Paul's Approach to Reversing Roe v. Wade
"Abortion, like other crimes, was criminalized on the state level prior to Roe v. Wade."
"Since the federal "solution" to the abortion issue has resulted in a holocaust of 50 million preborn babies since 1973, why should a return to the pre-1973 approach of prohibiting abortion on the state level be rejected now in favor of another federal "solution"?"
"By transferring the authority to oversee equal protection of the laws from the states to the federal government (particularly the federal courts), we have inadvertently also given the federal courts the converse power to abolish those rights! In this case, the most fundamental right of all — the right to life!"
"Congress could make Roe v. Wade a nonproblem overnight, since by prohibiting the federal courts from hearing abortion cases the states could then put back in place anti-abortion laws."
"The fight for life must continue!"
Hi Bill,
Thanks for sharing those comments. I did consider them and here a few thoughts.
-- I am very gald to see a passion for human life; I share it.
-- Effectively, the state approach allows killing to continue in our country, so how can I support it?
-- I do not see the Federal government as inherently evil.
Any govt, federal or state, has the potential for wicked monstrosity. However, the primary purpose of government in a biblical interpretation is to provide justice.
Therefore, the federal government is perfectly within its bounds, actually it has the resposibility, to protect human life in all ages and stages.
"Do you believe the Federal government should be limited by the US Constitution or not?"
Yes, I do think the Federal Govt should be limited by the Us Constitution, but why is it blasphemy to suggest a Change?
Didn't the founders themselves "change" it 10 times (Bill of Rights)? Why can't the Right to Life be included in the Bill of Rights; it seems to fit in.
Seems like I remember something from Civics about the Constitution being a "living document". The founders recognized that changes might be necessary at some future point and gave us the ability to revise it.
Besides, do your rights really come from a piece of paper?
Thanks for your feedback, PianoMom.
Another way of looking at leaving the prosecution of murder to the individual states, leaving aside the Constitutionality question for the moment, is that there is a good chance we'd go back to the situation before Roe v. Wade when killing a baby in the womb was illegal in most states.
So, if abortion were again illegal in 80 percent of the states, for sake of argument, that would be a huge improvement over the zero percent we have now.
I share Jefferson's perspective on government.
"Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Turn Off the TV, Dust Off the Constitution
A huge benefit to leaving as much responsibility as possible to individuals and state governments is not that state politicians are any more virtuous than federal politicians. It is that the citizens of an overly oppressive U.S. state can vote with their feet to move to a state that has a greater respect for liberty, while still remaining a U.S. resident. When state issues are nationalized, there is nowhere to flee from the oppression while still remaining a U.S. resident.
And you are correct about our rights. They come from God, who gives each individual the moral right to defend his rights. We are blessed when our government is no more or less than individual citizens who have delegated their lawful right of self-defense to a government to be exercised on their behalf.
Yes, the state's rights approach would be an improvement over what we have right now.
Decentralizing power is absolutely the way to go if this were any other issue. But we are talking about the killing of very small humans. We people who exist outside the womb have our speech, religion, gun ownership. etc. rights protected, but it's too much to suggest the Constitution protect a baby's life?
I still cannot understand why Libertarians go up in arms at the suggestion of a Constitutional amendment protecting human life. I don't feel a reasonable case has been made as to why I should oppose such a position.
Thanks for the give and take on this difficult issue, PianoMom, but mostly for your passion for protecting unborn people.
We have differing viewpoints on the best approach, but, hopefully, we pray to the same God, and He will show us each our own part to play, and then He will orchestrate them all together for good.
Quoting one of my favorite politicians: "Duty is ours; results are Gods." -- John Quincy Adams
My best to you.
Best wishes and Blessings to you as well, Bill.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home