Slubbo,

I hope you appreciate despite the fact my comments here always seem to be quarrelsome where you are concerned, I’m actually a fan of your writing, especially your comments on Ace’s site. I also hope you appreciate the preceding sentence may be the most civilized comment you’ll ever see me make. So with that behind me, now I’d like to move onto more familiar territory for me, in other words, I want to argue with you about something, this time, its about Dobson (again).

I don’t understand your justification for calling him a thug. And actually I’m not terribly impressed when one believer resorts to name calling against another one, but who am I to judge. The point is this (if there is a point), your man Ace (you are a guest host over there, right?) has been hyperventilating on his site all night. Ace is inciting Republicans to de-list themselves from the rolls of the Republican party because of the so called immigration compromise announced Thursday. I don’t hear you calling Ace a thug. I re-read Dobson’s comments several times and I didn’t see anything beyond what I’d expect from someone whose business is what Dobson’s is.

I read Ace’s site just about every time I turn on a computer. He is a talented entertainer whose politics I almost always agree with. I read Dobson whenever his inserts are in my church’s program, assuming I happen to bother showing up for church on the one (or is it two) Sunday(s) a month the insert appears. Ace entertains me. Dobson provides me with spiritual nourishment. Ace’s remarks make me laugh. Dobson’s increase the likelihood I’ll have a closer walk with the Lord. I don’t mind if you disagree with him but if you have to call someone an unkind name there are more deserving choices than Dobson.

OldBrokeDick

Thanks for the kind words. I actually don't mind your criticism all that much, because it's offered in a good spirit.

I'm not in the habit of changing the wording on my posts, but you are right - thug was a bit strong. I meant to imply that his behavior was overly threatening and it was the first word that came to mind.

I've struck the words, and added something in the same spirit, but without the ad hominem.

I do believe, though, that Dobson has played this card one too many times, as the Armey column shows. My fear is that his constant litany of threats will cause Republicans to regard evangelicals as gadflies rather than important members of a coalition.

When our voices become irritating, we'll get ignored. And Dobson is nearing that line.

As for the Ace stuff, it seems he's moderated his stance from "never vote or give money again" to "change your registration."

I guess I see your point about “crossing the line”. Its just that I’m not as confident my judgment, or yours for that matter, is better than Dobson’s when it comes to knowing exactly where that line is. If in doubt, I don’t mind it as much as you do that Dobson errs on the side of saying of what he believes is consistent with the Bible even if it makes him easier to be dismissed as a gadfly. Plus there are worse things than being dismissed by Republicans or by the general population for that matter. In fact, most of the time I expect my views to be dismissed as out of the mainstream and I’m rarely disappointed.

The way to compel Republicans and others to take us seriously isn’t to always stay on the correct side of the line you’re referring to. Instead it’s to demonstrate our ability to deliver contributions and votes. In politics, money doesn’t talk, it screams. And in the last two presidential election cycles, every vote mattered.

Maybe my point is even simpler than that. You see Dobson’s remarks as troublesome. I see myself as a troublemaker. I identify enough with the guy that obviously I’m going to jump to his defense, pretty much no matter what he says. So maybe we can leave it this way: you’re certainly free to criticize Dobson whenever you want, but when I see you doing it, you can expect a little bit of sass from me.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

So maybe we can leave it this way: you’re certainly free to criticize Dobson whenever you want, but when I see you doing it, you can expect a little bit of sass from me.

Sounds like a deal to me.

If I can jump in here: the real problem I see with Dobson, and the late Falwell and Robertson and others like them, is that they take advantage of their religious celebrity to gain political influence. Dobson is highly esteemed among evangelicals (deservedly IMO) for his psychological work. What he has done lately, however, is to leverage this esteem to turn Focus on the Family into a lobbying group that can claim considerable influence among evangelical voters. He is abusing this influence by not explicitly differentiating between his religious and political activities. Evangelicals who lack discernment will see "Dobson" or "Focus on the Family" and swallow whatever comes afterwards, even if what comes afterwards is purely political. These same evangelicals would be more discerning if an organization that had the words "Republican" in it said the exact same thing (I would hope). It is the camouflaging of political activity that most irks me about Dobson. I am concerned that he and other prominent evangelical leaders are helping evangelicalism become another example in the long history of the church of a reform movement that got addicted to worldly power and lost its salt.

Your point is actually a little easier for me to take than the original post, although strictly for my own purposes I don’t get confused when Dobson wanders off into politics, which is to say, away from his area. I’m probably too quick to defend him, as I demonstrated in the earlier comments, but as much as I admire his work when he sticks to what he’s good at, I’m never going to vote for someone just because Dobson says so. Still, at the same time, I admit if I was on the fence, what Dobson has to say might tip me one way or the other.

In the larger sense you’re probably correct. Dobson might do himself a favor if he used a little lighter touch, but subtly has never exactly been his strong suit, or mine. You and Slub win the argument.