James Dobson, Liar
---
The most un-Christian man in America tries to tut-tut his way out the ever-deepening pit of irrelevancy he and his soulless zombies find themselves in:
Just one problem: Neither can win. Neither ever had any hope of winning in the past, and neither has any hope of winning today.
And the Dobsonian zombies have, at every step, refused to even recognize their existence, let alone endorse them.
Coincidence?
So when Dobson insists that to "choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure" is -- his term -- "problematic," he is a liar (and, as a corollary, a sinner).
Dobson would be wiser to preach his "this ship can't sink" gobbledygook to his moron minions and not humiliate himself on the op-ed pages of the New York Times. "Remember your target audience" and all that.
More thoughts at Box Turtle Bulletin, Southern Beale.
---
Sam Brownback on abortion.
Mike Huckabee on abortion.
Sam Brownback on gay marriage (See also here).
Mike Huckabee on gay marriage. (See also here).
Reports have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion.There are two reasons why Dobson's "What, us worry?" posturing is, to be blunt, bullshit:
...
The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don't measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one's principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.
1. Sam BrownbackThere is no rational basis (to the extent that these Bible-thumping cretins can ever be "rational") not to support -- unequivocally, unreservedly and unapologetically -- either of these candidates. They are both radically pro-life and radically anti-gay. Neither is a Mormon (i.e., Satan) and neither is a thrice-married cross-dresser. Neither has any appreciable record of flip-flopping. Either would be a radical social conservative's dream candidate.
2. Mike Huckabee
Just one problem: Neither can win. Neither ever had any hope of winning in the past, and neither has any hope of winning today.
And the Dobsonian zombies have, at every step, refused to even recognize their existence, let alone endorse them.
Coincidence?
So when Dobson insists that to "choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure" is -- his term -- "problematic," he is a liar (and, as a corollary, a sinner).
Dobson would be wiser to preach his "this ship can't sink" gobbledygook to his moron minions and not humiliate himself on the op-ed pages of the New York Times. "Remember your target audience" and all that.
More thoughts at Box Turtle Bulletin, Southern Beale.
---
Sam Brownback on abortion.
Mike Huckabee on abortion.
Sam Brownback on gay marriage (See also here).
Mike Huckabee on gay marriage. (See also here).
Posted by Kip on
4 October 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.



