« DeGette No Fan of Webb | Main | Not One Dime Day? No Thanks »



What part of this is a threat??? Am I missing something?

He says: "I believe ..."

That doesn't appear like a threat to me.


Who else would evangelicals vote for?

A splinter candidate. Roy Moore. Gary Bauer. Ralph Reed (if he doesn't end up in jail for his Indian casino shenanigans). Maybe even Dobson himself.

Many evangelical voters are motivated by a very narrow range of issues, like abortion and gay marriage. If they come to see the two major parties as indistinguishable on these issues, they could be moved to bolt for a "message" candidate.

Alva Adams

Sure, but what would be the point of that? It would be like liberals voting for Ralph Nader and ending up with George Bush. A vote for Bauer is a vote for the Democratic candidate. Are they willing to go that far just to make a point?

And as to whether or not this is a threat, we've been around politics long enough to know what that statement means. You can't come out and say "Do what we say or we'll vote you out!" You have to be a little more subtle. There's a reason Dobson said it; you don't make pointed comments like that to a reporter in an off-hand manner. Dobson's flexing his muscles to tell Republicans that they are watching them.


You couldn't be more wrong Alva. Listen to the segment. I'm listening to it right now. Dobson says if these issues are ignored, he "believes" the Republican party will pay a price. What is that a threat? You might have been around politics for a long time but you're deaf to what Dobson is saying.


You liberals want so badly to tarnish Dobson that you're making stuff up. There's no "flexing of muscles" here.

Alva Adams

We don't care two licks about Dobson, and politically his power is fading anyway: his own backyard went Democrat. You weaken your argument when you resort to silly conspiracy theories that we are trying to tarnish Dobson.

It's not more complicated than this: we just think it's interesting that Dobson is making his presence known so soon, which may have something to do with Bush's refusal to expend a lot of energy on the gay marriage amendment.

You can believe what you want to believe, and isolate one word out of entire phrase to make you feel better, but Dobson is a smart guy. He wouldn't have said that just for the hell of it. He's not a political consultant - he didn't say that because he wanted to assess the next four years. We're not going to argue back and forth on this anymore, but don't accuse us of planting a conspiracy just because you don't agree. That's silly.


The conspiracy here is you alleging some sort of "threat". I still challenge you to back up your words with fact and show the "threat". There is no threat here nor does Dobson ever resort to "threats". You can't any evidence of him threatening anyone. Please be careful of what you write if you can't back it up.


OK, have it your way.

Dobson was just sayin', y'know, that something really bad COULD happen to a political party that didn't come through for its evangelical constituents.

But that's not a threat. Not.

As to whether evangelicals would bolt: The history of presidential politics is littered with splinter-group third party candidates. Evangelical Christians have both the funding and the zeal to mount that kind of protest campaign.

God bless 'em.


"but what would be the point of that? It would be like liberals voting for Ralph Nader"

Yes, it would be precisely like that. Almost 3 million voters did so.

Alva Adams

Yes, and in doing so they gave the election to George Bush, who was less like the candidate who reflected their values than Al Gore.

If it came to that and Christian Evangelicals chose to vote for a third party candidate in 2008 instead of the Republican candidate, then a Democrat will be president as a result - a Democrat who is less aligned with their preferred values than a Republican might be. There's nothing wrong with choosing that route, as long as you understand the repurcussions of doing so. You can't cast a protest vote en masse AND still get the Democrat/Republican candidate elected that most represents your values. It doesn't work that way. It's too bad that it doesn't work that way, but it is what it is.


I'm not arguing what's most logical. I'm just suggesting what Dobson's threat...er, warning...might actually mean.

If a second Bush term brings no action to curb abortion and no action to "defend" marriage, Dobson could try to pick up his marbles and go somewhere else. His warning seems to say that if the actions of Republicans are the same as action of Democrats on issues of concern to evangelicals, then Republicans aren't--as you put it--aligned with their preferred values.

And that will lead to a Dem victory?

Go, Dobson, Go!


"Politically, this sounds almost like the Republican version of the Mike Miles "Be the Change" group trying to eat their own for personal reasons."

Will you explain this? Are you implying that that "Be the Change" has taken such a stance (if so, please describe) or are you merely saying that a Democratic eqivalent of Dobson's threat would be if "Be the Change" threatened to pick up their marbles and seek another game?

Alva Adams

First of all, nobody is comparing Miles to Dobson, so relax. We are merely saying that both groups exhibit a "my way or the highway" sort of attitude where they might attack and separate from those in their own respective parties because of a difference in opinion. Cannibalizing your own political party just to make a point doesn't end up making things better for you in the long run.


Alan Keyes for President!! (says this smiling Dem)

And actually, while we're on that, Tom Tancredo for President, too!!

I'm definitely looking forward to the Republican split in 2008. Can you even imagine if Guiliani or McCain got the nomination? (I'm trying to keep myself from giggling with delight now)

The comments to this entry are closed.