BORKING OURSELVES
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Dr. Dobson
and Justice Bork:
Great Article... I could not agree more! Please email this
article to Dr. James Dobson and his followers. As a staunch
conservative, I am afraid they will undermine us again!
-- Michelle Frazier
Houston, Texas
Mr. Lord points out that the recalcitrance of social conservatives to support the candidates proffered by the Republican Party has had some negative consequences vis a vis Roe vs. Wade.
But he somehow misses the larger issue, which is, why does the
Republican Party continue to foist a host of bad candidates on
those of us who are inclined to vote Republican in the first place?
The cast of characters that are elevated by the officials in the
Republican Party to run for office are not themselves advocates for
the very positions that the Republican electorate wants advanced.
And, given our recent tragic history of the Republican
officeholders failing to advance the conservative agenda when they
held all three branches of office, the chickens are simply coming
home to roost. And this phenomenon is happening at the state, at
well as the national, levels. This disappointment explains why the
Republican Party lost the last election cycle and why they lag the
Democrats in fundraising today. The list of Republican failures in
this respect is too long to document here. But why should anyone
who truly cares about supporting a conservative agenda vote for
these imbeciles at all? If given a choice between Joseph Stalin and
Adolf Hitler in an election, then a man of conscience would surely
not vote at all.
-- Harry Hill
This article firmly focuses our attention to the unintended consequences of what happens when folks with good intentions decide to take their marbles and go home at exactly the wrong time.
As a timely example, I have been in an e-mail conversation with Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily. His latest column, "Why Dr. Dobson's right," is Exhibit 1 to the argument Mr. Lord made in his TAS article. Mr. Farah, whom many would describe as an uber-conservative, is of the same opinion as Dr. Dobson. Collectively, and in a Stepford fashion, they will sit on their hands come November of next year and not pull a lever or fill an oval, if a "not-exactly-a-pure-conservative" candidate is chosen as the Republican nominee.
Admittedly, both have a large following. But why they would take
their respective flocks over the proverbial cliff over one issue
that has been locked-in legally by the same crowd is a mystery
(kudos to Mr. Lord for pointing that out). If I'm hungry, I'll grab
half a loaf every single time. If one waits for the full loaf, mold
sets in very quickly.
-- Owen H. Carneal
Yorktown, Virginia
Mr. Lord has delivered a timely salvo across the bow of social conservatives, myself included. We can use numerous metaphors, but the bottom line is that the goals of social conservatism will be absolutely unachievable with another Clinton presidency. Mr. Lord could have also reminded us of the steps taken by Bill Clinton on the very first day of his presidency to roll back all gains that conservatives had made during the Reagan and Bush administrations concerning abortion. We will see President-elect Clinton demanding that W. start rolling recent gains back even before she takes office. Embryonic stem cell research will see every constraint removed on January 20th, 2009. Don't ask, don't tell will also be gone that day. Hillary will take time out of the Inaugural festivities to sign those Executive Orders. She may even sign them as soon as she takes her hand off the Bible. And all because we can't have the "full loaf."
I can support Giuliani if he gets the nomination. Or Thompson,
or McCain. Why? Because the unborn aren't the only people we should
be pro-life about. How about the rest of us, including our
children, when Hillary starts surrendering in the War on Terror? A
couple of nuclear bombs going off in our cities would be equal in
numbers to a couple of years of abortions. A few years ago, I was
where Dr. Dobson was when it came to pro-life issues. I was even
ready to withdraw my support from W. if he didn't put restrictions
on embryonic stem cell research. But 9/11 changed everything and I
realized that there are other life-and-death issues out there. So I
implore social conservatives to campaign very hard for their
preferred candidate, but accept the eventual GOP nominee, no matter
who it is. Another Clinton White House would be
merciless...especially to the unborn.
-- Andrew Macfayden, M.D.
Thank you, Mr. Lord, for your much needed political wisdom. It needs to be repeated a year from now, in bold letters. Your article stands in stark juxtaposition to today's Reader's Section, and some of the "value voters," vowing to insure a Hillary Clinton presidency. Fortunately, Michael Tomlinson, once again, brought some wise, real world perspective to all this.
I sincerely respect you "value voters," I really do, but I find
myself increasingly frustrated with your myopic sense of moral
superiority. It's how I feel about most leftists, however, I know
you folks are far more sincere and principled. I guess what I can't
comprehend is if a less than perfect conservative, vows to insure a
Supreme Court made up of "originalists," why then would you accede
to a hard-core Leftist that is DEVOTED to the antithesis of all
that you believe in? Yes, I've read ad nauseam about how you folks
view compromise of principle. Problem is, the left believes in "the
end justifies the means," and will compromise principle to insure a
Justice Ginsburg, and her devotion to the leftist cause, especially
Roe v. Wade. Is that what you really want; with a
generational Court shift with three potential vacancies? Wasn't the
hissy fit some of you had in '06, which has brought us this
despicable Democrat Congress, enough principle for you? Yes, Mr.
Lord, Harry Blackmun is indeed laughing, so is Hillary's mentor,
Saul Alinsky. You can fool most of the people all of the time.
-- A. DiPentima
Jeffrey Lord's revisiting the disastrous 1986 Congressional election cycle was a needed reminder of how conservatives are sometimes their own worst enemies. Many of those who now call themselves "Reagan conservatives" and mythologize his record to the detriment of today's Republicans were his vociferous critics during his second term. In fact, they so weakened him that had it not been for Oliver North it is probable Democrats would have impeached and removed Reagan from office.
Twenty years later falling for media propaganda and Democrat
spin many conservatives are again doing the left's dirty work for
them by undercutting President Bush (a solid Reagan conservative
without the eloquence) and Republicans in Congress. In the name of
their principles or the "brilliant" political strategy of "throwing
away an election" to punish Republicans they surrendered the House
and Senate to radical Democrats intent on losing the GWOT, raising
taxes on working Americans, increasing earmarks and pork barrel
spending and enacting a radical social agenda. Now they threaten to
hand the White House over to an incompetent and radical buffoon,
because the potential Republican nominees aren't Reagan. Brilliant!
One wonders if these self-described conservatives are actually
principled or just obtuse.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Writers who wish to make reference to James Dobson need to take a
small amount of time to check his bio. He is not a Reverend or a
theologian. He has a PhD in child development from USC and is a
licensed psychologist. He worked in pediatrics for 31 years --
hence most of his books are on child development.
-- David Shaw
I don't believe Dr. Dobson, a psychologist, has EVER used Reverend
before his name, nor has he ever ministered to a church. Your use
of the term is inaccurate, irrelevant and possibly disparaging to
Dr. Dobson, who has been an acknowledged pain to Republicans,
admittedly, but deserves accurate criticism.
-- Talmage Campbell
Beaumont, California