Dobson strikes again

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

So, I think you seem to be saying that no single person should have so much influence on politics - is that correct?

I personally don't have a problem with a single person having such a large influence on politics as long as the influence is in the arena of ideas and speech - (i.e. not in the illegal arenas of fraudulent voting, violence, coercion, etc.). Dobson's influence is powerful because people agree with his message. Other than countering Dobson's message with a better message, how exactly do you propose that Dobson be taken out of politics?

I don't like the idea of a person whose sole purpose is the advancement of a religious (and nearly theocratic) agenda having so much control over our party and our politics.

As you hint though, if that control is by virtue of the support of millions of Americans, then the control is democratic and therefore fairly legitimate. And one would hope that our system would prove its integrity by preventing this person (or any other) from advancing his agenda beyond what is legally allowed, regardless of how much support he is able to rally for his cause.

Now the question becomes, if, for example, some Republicans don't like Dobson's influence over their party (and it is difficult to overstate his influence), then what is the recourse? Well, can't get rid of the guy. We certainly can't silence the guy. That's just unAmerican. But we have to send a message to those in power that we don't want this man controlling our party. We do that with our votes.

This is why -- if you reject the Dobson influence and social-issue-obsession of the new improved GOP (and obviously not everyone does) -- it's so important to make sure McCain/Palin ticket is defeated. I honestly believe that if McCain/Palin win, the Republican Party is lost for another two decades. As long as they can win on a platform of big spending, big war, and appeal to Dobson, they will continue to run on that platform.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

if you reject the Dobson influence and social-issue-obsession of the new improved GOP (and obviously not everyone does) -- it's so important to make sure McCain/Palin ticket is defeated. I honestly believe that if McCain/Palin win, the Republican Party is lost for another two decades. As long as they can win on a platform of big spending, big war, and appeal to Dobson, they will continue to run on that platform.

A lot of hyperbole here.

First, in our region, Dobson has almost no impact, so it is possible to overstate his importance.

Second, I reject the idea that defeating the current ticket is the only method of repudiating him, especially if what we gain in Obama is worse. We swing from one end of the spectrum to the other end. Wild swings don't make sense, but we'll go from radically right to radically left. That does not seem to be the best and most reasonable option.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A lot of hyperbole here.

First, in our region, Dobson has almost no impact, so it is possible to overstate his importance.

Second, I reject the idea that defeating the current ticket is the only method of repudiating him, especially if what we gain in Obama is worse. We swing from one end of the spectrum to the other end. Wild swings don't make sense, but we'll go from radically right to radically left. That does not seem to be the best and most reasonable option.

On your first point, your premise is unrelated to your conclusion.

On the second, you allude to the existence of, but have offered no example of, alternate means of repudiation.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

On your first point, your premise is unrelated to your conclusion.

On the second, you allude to the existence of, but have offered no example of, alternate means of repudiation.

You allude to Dobson as being some mastermind of the Republican Party, even though as an anecdote, I doubt I could find anybody or rarely anybody I associate with, who knows who he is, and most of my friends are Republicans, some of the party wanks of significant position. Now I admit to lacking current ties to the very highest ranking party officials at the national level, but at one time I knew the Republican National Chair or whatever his title was and he certainly wasn't beholden to the likes of Dobson.

Your point seems to be that the Rove generated Religious Right voters seem to listen and follow the advice of this man and people like him, fearing for the creation of some theocracy. I admit that the RR have exercised unbeneficial influence over Republican Party policies, but have yet to discern any significant control by Dobson as the one man doing it. So the fact that my contacts are not insignificant and don't listen to this funny little pastor seems to contradict the fact that you have overstated his influence. He influences a minority, vocal block of voters within the Republican Party, nothing more, nothing less, much like Jesse Jackson, Jerry Falwell, or any other group of politically motivated clergymen.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You allude to Dobson as being some mastermind of the Republican Party, even though as an anecdote, I doubt I could find anybody or rarely anybody I associate with, who knows who he is, and most of my friends are Republicans, some of the party wanks of significant position. Now I admit to lacking current ties to the very highest ranking party officials at the national level, but at one time I knew the Republican National Chair or whatever his title was and he certainly wasn't beholden to the likes of Dobson.

The political awareness of your friends is hardly indicative of the major players at the national level. It was widely rumored that Palin was specifically selected because Dobson had withheld his endorsement. If that's true, or even if his opinion was a consideration, that's quite an influence. And indeed, following her selection Dobson announced that he was finally "comfortable" with the Republican ticket.

I do find it unlikely that any of your friends in "significant" positions within the party would not be aware of Dobson, Focus on the Family, and its PAC.

Your point seems to be that the Rove generated Religious Right voters seem to listen and follow the advice of this man and people like him, fearing for the creation of some theocracy. I admit that the RR have exercised unbeneficial influence over Republican Party policies, but have yet to discern any significant control by Dobson as the one man doing it. So the fact that my contacts are not insignificant and don't listen to this funny little pastor seems to contradict the fact that you have overstated his influence. He influences a minority, vocal block of voters within the Republican Party, nothing more, nothing less, much like Jesse Jackson, Jerry Falwell, or any other group of politically motivated clergymen.

I am speaking of his influence on the party at the national level. I never suggested that he influences each voter individually.

If you think that his influence is limited to his interaction with his subscribers and listeners, then you're not following along. Rove consults Dobson regularly, if not daily.


Regardless, you and I have had this discussion a hundred times already. You know my feelings on the matter and we know that we will not come to agreement as to the best response to this election or the best means of shaping the future of the Republican party. You and I could go back and forth forever but we probably both have better things to do than rehash the same argument. As a chick once said, "I won't back down and I don't have time to go round and round."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

The political awareness of your friends is hardly indicative of the major players at the national level. It was widely rumored that Palin was specifically selected because Dobson had withheld his endorsement. If that's true, or even if his opinion was a consideration, that's quite an influence. And indeed, following her selection Dobson announced that he was finally "comfortable" with the Republican ticket.

I do find it unlikely that any of your friends in "significant" positions within the party would not be aware of Dobson, Focus on the Family, and its PAC.

I am speaking of his influence on the party at the national level. I never suggested that he influences each voter individually.

If you think that his influence is limited to his interaction with his subscribers and listeners, then you're not following along. Rove consults Dobson regularly, if not daily.


Regardless, you and I have had this discussion a hundred times already. You know my feelings on the matter and we know that we will not come to agreement as to the best response to this election or the best means of shaping the future of the Republican party. You and I could go back and forth forever but we probably both have better things to do than rehash the same argument. As a chick once said, "I won't back down and I don't have time to go round and round."

You almost sound like tooblue, "we know Rove". We have news reports making such statements, but working behind the scenes I "know" nothing reported actually represents what goes on in reality. So for that reason I am doubtful as to Dobson's Republican Party influence, only as a matter of degree.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You almost sound like tooblue, "we know Rove". We have news reports making such statements, but working behind the scenes I "know" nothing reported actually represents what goes on in reality. So for that reason I am doubtful as to Dobson's Republican Party influence, only as a matter of degree.

The truth is, Arch, that you don't know what you're talking about but you don't want to admit it.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I don't like the idea of a person whose sole purpose is the advancement of a religious (and nearly theocratic) agenda having so much control over our party and our politics.

As you hint though, if that control is by virtue of the support of millions of Americans, then the control is democratic and therefore fairly legitimate. And one would hope that our system would prove its integrity by preventing this person (or any other) from advancing his agenda beyond what is legally allowed, regardless of how much support he is able to rally for his cause.

Now the question becomes, if, for example, some Republicans don't like Dobson's influence over their party (and it is difficult to overstate his influence), then what is the recourse? Well, can't get rid of the guy. We certainly can't silence the guy. That's just unAmerican. But we have to send a message to those in power that we don't want this man controlling our party. We do that with our votes.

This is why -- if you reject the Dobson influence and social-issue-obsession of the new improved GOP (and obviously not everyone does) -- it's so important to make sure McCain/Palin ticket is defeated. I honestly believe that if McCain/Palin win, the Republican Party is lost for another two decades. As long as they can win on a platform of big spending, big war, and appeal to Dobson, they will continue to run on that platform.

A couple of thoughts:
1. I'm surprised you self identify as a Republican with the "our party" verbiage.

2. I agree that using ones vote is an excellent way to reject his message. I had just such a chance during the Republican primary. I'm not sure that I agree with the conclusion that rejecting the Republican party in the general election is the best way to limit the influence of Dobson. Voting for a party that I find even more distasteful on the whole than the Republican party, simply because I don't like certain aspects of or people with influence in the Republican party, doesn't seem to me like the best way to repudiate or eliminate those aspects or people I dislike. That seems rather like cutting off my nose to spite my face.

3. As long as you're not proposing any external limitations on Dobson's speech or ability to promote his message then I say "have at it" in your attempts to counter his ideas with better ideas of your own. That's what the marketplace of ideas is all about.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

The truth is, Arch, that you don't know what you're talking about but you don't want to admit it.

I don't know maybe, but you think you do, and don't realize what is in public print, which you have keenly researched and digested, believing it to be the gospel truth of politics, really has very little to do with national decision making.

The Big Dogs, none of us, never draw attention to themselves and stay out of the limelight. You won't read their policy position papers.

A person such as a Jesse Jackson or Dobson may motivate low level party wanks or voters, but they do not drive the machine. In this you have been deceived. We little people play no roles and the Big Players are mostly anonymous. What the media believes contributes is naive as well.

The real players have no concern for party platforms, judicial nominations, or foreign policy except as it affects business policies. Most don't believe that, and the process is more like a spiderweb, than a railway.

Just get involved at a local level, watch news reports and then become involved behind the scenes. There's really no relation to what you can research through public media to what actually is going on.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't know maybe, but you think you do, and don't realize what is in public print, which you have keenly researched and digested, believing it to be the gospel truth of politics, really has very little to do with national decision making.
...
Just get involved at a local level, watch news reports and then become involved behind the scenes. There's really no relation to what you can research through public media to what actually is going on.

Thank you, Captain Condescension.