What James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and the WPF Are M

[deacon blues]

Dr. James Dobson the founder of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, radio host, author and an outspoken leader of the conservative Christian evangelical movement has stated publicly that he would "not vote for John McCain under any circumstances." He carefully makes this statement, as he characterizes it, as a private citizen and not speaking for the non-profit organization that he is the head of. Dr. Dobson makes this declaration certainly suspecting that his statement will influence the millions of listeners of his radio broadcasts, the millions who purchase his books and the millions who regard him as a prominent evangelical leader and spokesman.

Dr. Dobson's influence has grown in Washington over the past two decades as once more dominant leaders of the Christian right's political movement have aged or passed away. The Moral Majority's Jerry Falwell died last year and Pat Robertson seems to have lost his gravitas as he has grown older. Since the Reagan years of the 80s and the Republican Revolution of 1994, the heyday of the Christian political right appears to be a fading memory.

Dr. Dobson has made several trips to Washington since the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 to warn Republican leaders that if the pro-abortion, anti-gay, and prayer and Bibles in the schools agenda was not embraced and promoted in a stronger fashion, he would lead a mass exodus of Christian voters from the GOP and abandon them. His "my way or the highway" approach, especially in this election cycle, seems to spell trouble for the Republicans.

Rush Limbaugh is also on an anti-McCain campaign. For years Rush has denounced McCain as a Senator for bi-partisan efforts with Democratic Senators Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold and once Democrat now Independent Joe Lieberman. He has been excoriated for his vote against the Bush tax cuts and for his criticisms of the Bush Administration over the past seven years. Rush has recently begun to promote Mitt Romney after stating that he doesn't do endorsements last year. There are millions who listen to Rush's show, the largest audience on the airwaves. He, too, takes a stance of "all or nothing" when it comes to McCain.

I understand principled decisions. I admire the attitude that embraces the notion that once you have fought to take a hill, be willing to die on that hill. I believe in convictions and staunchly and stubbornly clutching them, resisting any efforts to convince you to let go.

But is this the only principle involved here? Is conservatism as we know it the most important struggle of our day? Is it better to not vote because of McCain or vote for a third-party candidate as a matter of conscience than to vote for someone with McCain's credentials? I feel like Dr. Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and others are missing a bigger, far more important issue that is at stake in this election.

McCain has a 24 year Senate career. He came to Washington during the Reagan years and describes himself as a "footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution". He has voted thousands upon thousands of times over the years. His voting record is strongly conservative. His lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is an 82.3. Over 80% of McCain's Senate votes are rated as conservative. The votes he is being made famous for by his detractors are the ones on tax cuts, illegal immigration, and campaign finance reform.

Let's examine these votes. McCain voted against the tax cuts in the early Bush years not because he is opposed to tax cuts. He has voted overwhelmingly in favor of tax cuts in his carrer. His record bears this out. He opposed the Bush tax cuts because they were not, unlike the Reagan tax cuts of his early Senate career, inclusive of cuts in spending. McCain foresaw the error of cutting taxes but not controlling spending and chose a principled stand, even against his own party. Had they listened to him, the Congress might still be in GOP hands. But in 2006 the American voters had had enough of the spend-happy Republicans and voted them out of office. Bush never vetoed one piece of legislation during the GOP-controlled Congress years. He should have listened to McCain.

The illegal immigration stand McCain took was a lesson learned, so he says. He says he learned through his plummeting popularity in the polls after the debacle that Americans want a secure border first before anything else is done. Whether he means that or not is a matter of judgment. Can you trust this man to say what means and mean what he says? More on this later.

The campaign finance reform legislation, "McCain-Feingold" as it is called, is seen by many as an affront to free-speech rights. I agree it is a poor piece of legislation. I don't defend McCain on this one per se. However, I will say this about McCain and his track record: the man consistently has opposed the corruption that pervades Washington, neither having received one dime of lobbyist money nor ever once earmarking a piece of legislation for pork barrel projects in his state. He has always been vocal against the corrupt practices in and around Washington and I believe this was part of his motivation for the ineffective legislation. He was trying to clean up the electoral process and remove the influence of special interests. Had the GOP heeded his warnings about corruption the Abramoff lobbyist scandal would not have happened and another reason for the anti-GOP sentiment that led to the 2006 electoral defeats could have been avoided.

Let's consider the alternatives. If McCain is the GOP nominee and Hillary is the Democratic opponent and conservatives stay home or vote third-party or do, as Ann Coulter has said, "vote for Hillary before I would vote for McCain", then rather than getting a President with an 82.3 score from the ACU, we will get one with a rating of 9. That's a voting record in six years as a Senator of 9% of the time agreeing with conservative values. Would you rather have a President who agrees with you 82% of the time or 9% of the time? That's what you and me and Dr. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh and all of us who may decide to stay home as a matter of principle will get. The result if Obama is nominated by the Democrats is much the same.

So let me ask you, what is the missing principle here? Thanks for asking, I will tell you. In this world of Islamic fundamentalism, unstable governments pursuing nuclear weapons, terrorists avowing to kill American men, women, and children at all costs, and world leaders promising to "wipe Israel off of the map", we can't afford to "make a statement to the GOP" in 2008. If McCain is the only viable alternative to Hillary and Barak, then we must stand for the higher principle of swallowing our pride and personal agendas for the greater good.

Abortion is an important issue, gay rights is an important issue, prayer in the schools, illegal immigration, taxes, and all of the other planks of the Republican party and conservative platform are important. But the issue of the evil regimes and individuals in this world that wish to destroy us and our allies supercedes these. Why? Because many of these issues are only going to change when the spiritual condition of America changes, not with a change in the White House. A president has some influence on the social climate, but he wields his greatest authority over the foreign policy of our nation. Clinton and Obama have vowed to pull out of the Middle East. That will create a power vaccuum the consequences of which will be unthinkable. They will be more accomodating to the UN, relinquishing more of our national sovereignty. They will sign the Koyoto Protocol damaging further our national economy. They will embrace the World Court placing America under the authority of a mostly anti-American world legal system.

And as far as the domestic issues are concerned, we would have an 80% chance McCain will promote policies that we can agree with, and nominate strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court, and veto tax increases, and oppose gay-rights legislation, and conservatively govern. Hillary and Obama give us a snowballs chance in the lake of fire of doing so.

The wisdom of taking a risk and voting for McCain has a greater measure of merit than the wisdom of refusing to support his candidacy because of a handful of times he has broken from party ranks. Simple logic should compel a conservative to reasonably go to the voting booth in Novmeber and pull that lever for "Mac".

Which brings me to my final point. I see a similar parallel with the WPF men. I don't wish ill on them, I have prayed for their success. I have prayed the Lord be with them in their endeavors. But I feel they have taken a principled stand which is admirable, but is flawed. They are choosing to part ways with brethren (I know they say you can have dual memberships but we all know it is a matter of time before that will be impossible---they know this too) with which they are probably harmonious with on 80-90% of the issues. But they, like Dobson and Limbaugh, are not willing to continue supporting something unless they have their way on most if not all the issues. I am afraid that time will prove this attitude to be a mistaken one and the greater good will suffer as a result.

[deacon blues]

CONTINUED

Dobson and Limbaugh may possibly forever damage the measure of their influence in generations to come. Should McCain get elected without their support, the chances of they and their constituents having a voice in his administration would probably be very little if any. Pushing McCain further to the left could be a result and then we may get a President who will agree with us 40-50% of the time. I'll take my chances on 80%.

The Tulsa Six may never know what, in time, they could have accomplished by sticking the tv issue out with the UPC and either influencing the organization to change its mind once again back to the ban of the 70s or seeing that it actually had some merit and produced a positive result. By pulling out, the conservative vaccuum they leave may push the UPC further left and the greater good will have suffered as a result.

[Raven]

Wise words Deacon.
Raven

[rgcraig]

Very good.

[Apprehended]

Deacon Blues, you said:

Which brings me to my final point. I see a similar parallel with the WPF men. I don't wish ill on them, I have prayed for their success. I have prayed the Lord be with them in their endeavors. But I feel they have taken a principled stand which is admirable, but is flawed. They are choosing to part ways with brethren (I know they say you can have dual memberships but we all know it is a matter of time before that will be impossible---they know this too) with which they are probably harmonious with on 80-90% of the issues. But they, like Dobson and Limbaugh, are not willing to continue supporting something unless they have their way on most if not all the issues. I am afraid that time will prove this attitude to be a mistaken one and the greater good will suffer as a result.

I agree with your entire post which was well written and very wise.

The sentence bolden above, is very true but is a gross understatement also.

I'm not afraid to say that time will positively prove their attitude to be grossly mistaken, being a product of the deceiver from which nothing good can come from listening to Him.

There is a guiding spirit involved in their misguided action. History will prove that dividing up the body of Christ over such mundane, inconsequential issues will result in a far greater loss than any gain that can possibly be hoped for.

It is also true with Dr. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh. Dividing up the conservative electorate with such inflamatory statements as, "I will not support or vote for John McCain under any circumstance" is doing far more harm to the conservative cause than any good that they hope to come out of it. It is ultimately destructive. Dobson needs to shut up. Limbaugh, I believe, hopefully will reconsider and finally get behind McCain if he should ultimately win the nomination.

[Praxeas]

How ironic it is for Republicans to get a Republican in office at ALL costs....even to the point of electing a democrat in Republican clothing

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

How ironic it is for Republicans to get a Republican in office at ALL costs....even to the point of electing a democrat in Republican clothing

I don't remember any OTHER Democrat promising to appoint only constructionist judges to the bench.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

I don't remember any OTHER Democrat promising to appoint only constructionist judges to the bench.

Promises mean next-to-nothing in politics.
The best predictor of a man's future behavior is his past behavior.

I'm not sure I'd be as radical about this as Rush is, but I can see his frustration.

McCain has acted like a Democrat and compromised with them so many times before, why should we believe he'll act any different if he took office as President?

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

How ironic it is for Republicans to get a Republican in office at ALL costs....even to the point of electing a democrat in Republican clothing

A Democrat? Do you not comprehend 82.3% conservative voting record? How does that make one a Democrat? Do you not understand the gist of the post? It is not about electing a Republican. Its about preventing one of two very, very, very liberal Democrats that will wholesale turn our way of life on its head versus a man who a MAJORITY of the time votes conservatively but has voted in a MINORITY of the times liberal.

Its like saying that FDR is no different than Josef Stalin. Thay may agree on a couple of points but there is a VAST difference. The Democrat in disguise characterization is little on the dramatic side. No its not. Its really, really dramatic---a lot dramatic.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Promises mean next-to-nothing in politics.
The best predictor of a man's future behavior is his past behavior.

I'm not sure I'd be as radical about this as Rush is, but I can see his frustration.

McCain has acted like a Democrat and compromised with them so many times before, why should we believe he'll act any different if he took office as President?

In this case, it means an awful lot.

It would be political insanity to not follow through with his promise.

Betrayed confidence by an unkept promise of this magnitude would spell certain disaster to his legacy in far too many ways than he would want to even consider.

Betrayed political allies do not soon forget. They will exact their pound of flesh.