Bring It On!

James Dobson Speaks - “Look At Me, Look At Me!”

July 22nd, 2008 | by Daniel DiRito |

Having to jump up and down for attention must be pure torture for James Dobson. Faced with the prospect of being irrelevant in the 2008 election has led the leader of Focus on the Family to announce that he may rescind his prior refusal to vote for John McCain.

In the following video, a few of the faithful explain the dilemma confronting their dear leader. They want us to know that their leader is a man of principle…and that supporting John McCain would only happen out of his concern for the unborn and the protection of the family. [Shed tears now]

What the folks at FOF don’t want us to conclude is that Dobson’s ginormous ego has emerged and that his need to be the center of attention has led him to reconsider. In other words, when no one followed him over the political cliff, he climbed back up, dusted himself off, and crafted a new message…one that says he’d have to do whatever it takes to save the children and defeat the homos.

I guess the man that felt it was important to teach the GOP a lesson (translated as I demand to be more important and I’m happy to throw the election to do so) for failing to follow through on the issues that are important to evangelicals has decided his stint on the sidelines could spell the end of the Dobson dynasty. Hence, he’s rolled up his sleeves and he’s ready to lead. [Send checks now]

Alas, the curtain is removed! What Dobson really fears is that his irrelevance could also mean an end to the cash FOF has been able to generate by portraying itself as one of the most influential organizations on the religious right. That brings us back to principles…and there’s no doubt that Dobson knows it takes a lot of “principal” (cash) to garner significant “interest” (income). Welcome back James Dobson…we missed you!

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 4 Responses to “James Dobson Speaks - “Look At Me, Look At Me!””

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 22, 2008 | Reply

    What makes you think no one followed him over the political cliff. Many certainly did. John McCain’s base is not Evangelical Christians. It isn’t conservatives, either, except in a hold-the-nose and vote sense, which is pretty much what Dobson is saying.

    He’s just taken a look down the abyss that an Obama presidency would mean for the issues most important to him and his followers and decided that McCain, bad as he is, is better than Obama on those issues. He’s decided that idealism is a good thing but that politics requires a bit of realism as well.

    In other words, a vote for either Obama or McCain may not advance issues important to Evangelicals but a vote for McCain may do less damage to those issues than a no-vote.

    It was the refusal to do this in the first place that was petulant, in my opinion. I think that this is just Dobson coming to his senses.

  3. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 22, 2008 | Reply

    But though I disagree with his initial decision and agree with this one, he was leading with both decisions. Neither was an abdication of leadership; it was a re-evaluation. I don’t have much respect for Dr. Dobson and I certainly could not be considered a follower of his but people SHOULD re-evaluate previous decisions.

    Wasn’t that the complaint about Bush, that he stayed the course even when it should have been clear that that course was leading to political disintegration and violent chaos? That he didn’t re-evaluate his former position until way too much time and chaos had occurred?

    Arguing that Dobson’s decisions are wrong is fair game but don’t kick Dobson for re-evaluating. After all, even John Kerry voted for the Iraq war before it was the wrong war in the wrong place. ;-)

  4. By Chris Radulich on Jul 23, 2008 | Reply

    So its alright to be a flip flopper if your not a democrat.

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 23, 2008 | Reply


    Nah! I have no problem with people reassessing former decisions that they’ve made no matter what Party they belong to as long as they’re able to articulate why they think their former decision was wrong and their present decision is right. That explanation may not even be about previous decisions being wrong. Changed conditions often make reassessments necessary.

    Of course, that’s not the same as saying A to one group of people (e. g., farmers in Iowa) and NOT A to others. That’s neither reassessment or flip-flopping. That’s pandering.

    My objections to Kerry had nothing to do with flip-flopping.

Post a Comment