Is Focus on the Family Making Salazar Stronger?

The Denver Post has an interesting article about how Senator Ken Salazar is gaining big points from Democrats for his handling of his feud with Focus on the Family:

Jeered for his early support of the Bush agenda, Democratic U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar now is endearing himself to liberals in his party. Members of the political left say they're heartened to see Colorado's mild-mannered moderate come out swinging against Colorado Springs- based Focus on the Family about judicial nominees and the role of religion in politics.

James "SpongeDob" Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization have been laughably bad on the PR front lately, and their recent attack on Salazar may end up doing more good for the Senator than it does for their organization. Here's a good analysis of why:

"He had the guts to stand up and say, 'Hold on here,"' said veteran Washington watcher Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "This has given him a place in this debate, which you wouldn't usually find for a freshman."

Focus on the Family has given Salazar an opportunity to be heard, and he took full advantage of it. Now the debate has moved from the filibuster issue, which is why Dobson started this whole fight, and is now focusing on Salazar's strength as a Senator.

Dobson and Focus on the Family couldn't have known that Salazar would react as strongly as he did, but thus far their efforts appear to have backfired; they might have been more prepared for this, however, especially given the fact that nationwide polls continue to show more support for the pro-filibuster crowd than the far right. Now, Dobson is starting to look more and more like the little brother who picks a fight just so somebody will pay attention to him.

Comments

[James C. Hess]

RE: Civility on this blog.

What's the deal? I guess it's okay to sling mud, name-call, and slander people just so long as they are right of center like James Dobson?

So he doesn't like a cartoon. So? Is that justification to be disrespectful toward him?

Given the moderators of this blog are cowards who hide behind dead people, and aged school-yard bullies, apparently.

[GOPer]

Give it a rest James. It's the same crap from you every day on this blog. Don't you have anything else to do?

[ed]

Seriously, the moderators on this blog have a serious problem with Dobson. Don't forget that Dobson is not a politician. Focus on the Family's activities are about 5 percent political and the rest providing resources to families and parents who request it.

Don't forget that it was not the base that put Salazar in his position, it was mainstream, moderate voters who trusted his word on important issues like supporting up or down votes for the President's judicial nominations.

[ed]

I echo this post here from another thread:

This is pretty sub-par in terms of Colorado Pols.

I like they are bringing in GOP and Dem guest bloggers, but this is pretty obvious hackery - not analysis.

[Alva Adams]

Dobson is always trying to stay politically involved, and it is no secret that he plays a part in Republican elections. Because this site is about Colorado politics, we discuss Dobson now and then. Anything related to Colorado politics is worthy of discussion here.

We have nothing against Dobson except for his attempts, reported by The Los Angeles Times, to intimidate judges. We're just giving our analysis on the situation, and from our point-of-view, it doesn't look like their PR campaign is working. The Sponge Bob thing was a stupid attack because, as we wrote when we first saw it, they were clearly going to be ridiculed and their message lost in the laughter.

In this case, their attacks against Salazar seem to be backfiring by just serving to make a Senator who wasn't all that impressive to this point look much stronger. When taken together, their message machine isn't doing that well.

[Ter Ducken]

I see how you might take offense to the last line of the post, but I don't read this as an attack on Dobson. I thought the same thing when I read the newspaper this morning on Salazar. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean there's some conspiracy.

[ed]

Your satirical posts about anything related to Dobson are anything but commentary.

[Ter Ducken]

They don't need me to defend them, but why is it off-limits to be sarcastic about Dobson and not off-limits to be sarcastic about other politicians or events? In my book, when Dobson put himself out there he's as eligible as anyone to be scrutinized. I don't have any problem with anything in this post. The only thing in the entire post that you could even argue about is the last line, and I think it's a fair analogy.

[wonderwoman]

Focus can use all of this negative press to their advantage by soliciting donors for large contributions. Non profits always raise more money when they are on the attack or are being attacked.

[Keith]

Ching! Once again, wonderwoman is dead on the money!

[heavenly]

Focus on the Family is a joke. They should be focusing on bigger "Religous" problems then trying to Bush's picks in office.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

Great Barry Goldwater quote of the day from www.andrewsullivan.com:

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"- Barry Goldwater, September 16, 1981. I wonder if Goldwater could even exist within today's Republican establishment.

[Realist]

Focus may be making Salazar stronger among Democrats, but the man got elected because he had bipartisan support in '04. He got Republicans to vote for him because he campaigned on a moderate platform. Next time he comes up for election - he wont be so strong amongst Republicans. He pulled the wool over their eyes and they will remember. In the the long run, this may hurt him and his future chances of bipartisan support.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

You don't think, realist, that the Rs who voted for Salazar last year might be even more eager to vote for him again because of his positions on these issues?

Do you think that the Rs who voted for him last year were the "fundamentalist" religious radicals that are the base of the GOP?

Or were they the thinking independent Rs who wanted the senate's Ds to block Bush appointees to the Courts if they were too activist and appeared to be incapable of being strict Constitutionalists? Note the irony.

[James C. Hess]

Mr. Salazar may publically express his displeasure with Mr. Dobson and his opinions. It is called The First Amendment Right, which some would have violated because they don't believe in equality for all. However, Mr. Salazar is NOT doing what he is doing as a concerned citizen. He is doing so by way of unabashed partisan political grandstanding.

And that is WRONG.

[Ter Ducken]

Whoa, James. You need to work on your history. Salazar didn't pick this fight - Focus on the Family did. He's responding to their attacks.

[Real Deal]

Johnson,
I regret the day you discovered this website, once again you are WRONG! Rs voted for Salazar for two reasons:

1. Salazar was pegged as a moderate voice from the beginning with strong roots in politics. He lied constantly while running for office, giving R answers to moderate questions with a slight liberal tint. He flip flopped more than Kerry! Coors problem was he couldn't expose the lies because he was a rookie. Moderates liked Salazar's conservative answers.

2. Alot of "fundamentalists" were shunned when Schaffer lost. The Rs who came out against Coors at the end were (some) of the religious right, because of Coors business policies and views on drinking. "Fundamentalists" cut off their face to spite their nose constantly (i.e. that is why the R party is so scattered).

I think this will come back to bite Salazar hard, there are alot of people who will remember this once all is said and done. This is the first example on many issues that will haunt Salazar for his career. The next time Salazar comes up for re-election the fundamentalists will be long past this and on to new "outrages", but the people who matter in this business won't forget.

[Real Deal]

Johnson,
I regret the day you discovered this website, once again you are WRONG! Rs voted for Salazar for two reasons:

1. Salazar was pegged as a moderate voice from the beginning with strong roots in politics. He lied constantly while running for office, giving R answers to moderate questions with a slight liberal tint. He flip flopped more than Kerry! Coors problem was he couldn't expose the lies because he was a rookie. Moderates liked Salazar's conservative answers.

2. Alot of "fundamentalists" were shunned when Schaffer lost. The Rs who came out against Coors at the end were (some) of the religious right, because of Coors business policies and views on drinking. "Fundamentalists" cut off their face to spite their nose constantly (i.e. that is why the R party is so scattered).

I think this will come back to bite Salazar hard, there are alot of people who will remember this once all is said and done. This is the first example on many issues that will haunt Salazar for his career. The next time Salazar comes up for re-election the fundamentalists will be long past this and on to new "outrages", but the people who matter in this business won't forget.

[Marshall]

Why do so many of you hardcore Republicans having trouble coming to grips with the fact that the Republicans Party lost because it wants to pay attention to this pseudo culture war instead of the issues our country faces?

Moderate Republicans voted for Salazar because they have had enough of Republicans ignoring the real issues that we have in our country. Salazar didn’t pull the wool over anyone’s eyes and these smart voters knew exactly what they were getting. Salazar was elected because he is committed to working on the issues that are important to Colorado.

I think the only reason Salazar responded to Dobson is because as a person of faith he was sick of a fringe group pushing its radical agenda over the needs and issues that matter to most Americans. As long as Republican leadership like Frist keeps pushing this non-existent culture war then voters will continue to elect good men like Ken Salazar that care about the issues that are important to them.

Marshall

[Ter Ducken]

Again, let's not forget about the timeline here. Focus on the Family attacked Salazar first; he was responding to their attacks. He didn't pick this fight or seek them out.

[Sopris]

The first right wing poster to find a voter that follows what James Dobson has to say but also voted for Salazar gets a special prize. Feel free to take your time - you'll need it.

[Stygius]

Realist/Real Deal obviously hasn't talked to many Salazar voters. He's also ignoring the loss of the state legislature to the Democrats and the congressional losses. All these at the same time was no accident. If Schaffer had taken the nomination, the GOP loss would have been even more lopsided than it was.

There's a reason Ken Salazar is a US senator and we aren't: He knows what he's doing.

But I wish Colorado Pols and all the readers here would join me in telling Ken to get his Senate website going. It's current condition is disgraceful, and he needs a good outlet if he's going to fight these kinds of fights.

FIRE someone if you have to, man. But get it done.

[Alva Adams]

We've said the same thing about Salazar's website before. It really is embarrassing for a U.S. Senator. This is the second paragraph of the opening letter, signed by Salazar:

In time, you will be able to use this website to contact me and my staffs and offices in Colorado as well as in Washington, and obtain information about my legislative activities and other work, constituent services, government operations, and other items of interest to citizens.

Contact him and his staffs right away and tell them what you think.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

Is it possible we're discussing two issues.

1. Filibustering judicial nominations. I'm against it because it's not fair. The unfair Byrd rules should be changed. Salazar's on the wrong side of this one, but that's ok. What he said during the campaign is that he is for voting on all nominees, not that he would vote to change Senate rules, I think. Does anyone have a direct quote saying he promised to change Senate rules?

2. Voting for Bush's nominees. I'm not against any of them at this time, and Salazar may support some of them.

And the third issue is Dobson, who's been an issue for some time and will be for awhile. Sooner or later, he, too, will fade into the sunset, forgotten and irrelevant.

[Colorado_Underdog]

Sounds like to me, Salazar needs to hold a waffle breakfast.