Centerfield

Dobson's trying to get credit and mileage for Daschle, but Daschle's loss had a lot more to do with his lead on filibustering and anti-gun stances in a red state. Dobson had nothin' to do with it. (This won't stop him from grasping for credit, of course.)

I was under the impression that Daschle's loss had more to do with South Dakotan's not wanting to have every single representative to Congress be a member of the opposition party.

As for Dobson, I agree about the ethics of it. But, it also needs to be pointed out that he's a *self-appointed* religious/political leader. His actual area of expertise is in child psychology, not theology or public policy. That's not to say that he can't comment on whatever strikes his fancy. Just that it should be understood in context.

What's the big deal. Dobson is doing the same thing as any other political interest group. The fact that he represents a religious interest is no different than than unions and other liberal and conservative groups that threaten pols that don't vote their way. It's not like he's saying God is going to punish the Democrats (although he probably thinks it.) I think it's appalling whenever any group requires a "litmus" test for candidates, but if Dobson wasn't a religious figure, no one would think anything of it.

Dobson's full of it. Ben Nelson has a 51 (out of 100) rating from the ACU and Byrd a 31. Most Democrats score around 10-15. Dobson's a fool to tell them what they've known since they were first elected, that they're in red states and need to move to the center. It's people like Dobson who give the conservative movement, its positive aspects, a bad name.

Rick's points are valid. However, let's not forget that liberal pastors are as guilty - if not guiltier - of this same charge. The most rampant abuse this past election cycle in this arena was in some black churches, with endorsements from the pulpit and church services being turned into political rallies for Democratic candidates.

molotov makes a very good point. There's a misperception on the Left that Liberal ministers doing politics from the pulpit is somehow different. It's not. The failure to hold all Christian ministers/leaders to the same standard undercuts the very argument that the Left makes. And that's unfortunate because I think they make some very valid points when they criticize Conservative Christian leaders.

MWS's point is well taken and I would readily agree that everyone has a right to step on a soapbox and speak their piece (peace?).

What's disturbing to me about the rhetoric coming from the Right is the fascist overtones in what they say. That's not to say that the racial overtones coming from some on the Left is any better. Just that I personally perceive a greater threat to the union from the fascist stuff than I do the racist stuff. And I'll readily agree that that is a subjective POV.

Pulpit-pounding is restricted to no party. I just find it totally laughable for Dobson to take credit for Daschle's defeat, or think that his best efforts on his best day could unseat, say, the likes of Robert Byrd or Ben Nelson. In what universe?

While I'd certainly like to see the religious leaders on both sides (but especially the right) be a little more circumspect in their pronouncements, I'm flummoxed by Kevin's statement that Dobson's statements - and those of other leaders on the right - have "fascist overtones".

This seems way over the top to me and more of a leftist trope than a well-considered opinion. Yes, folks like Dobson have some pretty strong views on culture and what they'd like to see changed, but since when is opposition to policies like abortion equivalent to "fascism"? Is he calling for the Bush to suspend the constitution and become a dictator? Is he calling for terrorism against his political opponents and suppression of their rights to free speech? Is he supporting an explicitly racist, one-party state?

In all cases, the answer is "No" (and no, I don't buy the idea that his opposition to liberal candidates is equivalent to suppression of their rights). I cannot help but think that Kevin is simply hoping to shut down debate by trying to paint those on his right as fascists simply because they disagree with him.

In any important debate both sides will have a strong desire to "win" the argument and thus, in essence, suppress or defeat the arguments of their opponents. But regardless of Kevin's meta-perspective on social and political forces at work in America, he surely understands that there is a difference between wanting to implement favored policies and wanting to implement a fascist police state!

I'm with MWS, let these guys say whatever they want. They are as entitled to play politics and speak their mind as others.

But I do need to add that if you want to play politics and go around threatening other people playing politics, you better be sure you can take it. Religious figures are prone to thinking that their pronouncements are some sort of official entitlement. This means they are used to dishing it out, and not so good at taking it.

If he makes a threat to the wrong person, he shouldn't be surprised if that person finds a way to make him really sorry.

And let no one forget that churches and charities get tax exemptions but political action groups do not. The more religious figures get directly involved in politics, the more they hasten a re-examination of the criteria under which various groups qualify for tax-exempt status.

Arrogance and hubris are not restricted to one group or another. It always amazes me how one group or another thinks that their issue is so important that their "legions" of followers will defeat the targeted candidate. It usually doesn't happen unless the candidate is unpopular anyway. I suppose a religious figure like Dobson might be even more prone to this syndrome because he is used to being above the fray to some extent.

Rick, you're being totally hypocritical here. Claiming that a human fetus is NOT deserving of any human rights is just as much a matter of belief as claiming it does have human rights. The pro-abortion believers have LONG been using "faith and certainty" about the goodness of killing unwanted human fetuses, and applying litmus tests to judges and politicians.

It is fair to say the Dems have excommunicated any real pro-life folk (opposition to partial birth doesn't make Reid pro-life).

In fact, moderates should be more honest about both extremes of belief, and look more at results rather than ideology.

Of course, if they did that they'd have to prolly conclude that abortion is a mistake, despite it working to keep down the black population and hugely reducing the political clout of the (far fewer) children of feminists (the Roe effect). Also reduced crime; and reduced abortion even.

And gay marriage opposition is partially due to pro-life folk having had legal abortion crammed down their throats, with the SC imposing their pro-death morals on the rest of the country...

I'm a Christian and a bit right of center but Dobson certainly doesn't speak for me. IMHO he speaks as a political conservative not as a Christian. More often than not, if he's for it, I have to second guess whether I should be for it too.

When you mix religion and politics, religion usually loses.

Having said all that, I do agree that we have BOTH a religious left and religious right in America. Both too easily lose sight of their faith.