Hunter, I think we’re at a standstill here, as far as making any
actual headway on this argument, since clearly you have a respect
for this man that I don’t share, which I fully appreciate. One
thing I’m afraid I can’t let go, however, is this bit about the
“canard” I am “decieving” myself with vis a vis religious overtones
of Dobson’s rhetorical approach, which seems to suggest I am either
being doubly deceptive or doubly stupid. When I saw Dobson endorse
Toomey in Amish country two years ago he said he normally
didn’t get involved in these sort of things but that God
specifically encouraged him to intervene. In the Pennsylvania
Republican primary. Must have been a slow day in the rest of the
kingdom. The remainder of Dobson’s talk reinforced this. And, like
I said, I’ve actually listened to his radio show. I am familiar
with the schtick. Better than Falwell? Yeah, sure. High bar.
So I’ll thank you for providing another perspective on the man
and wish you luck with your dissertation, but you can spare me the
condecension. Every analysis can be picked apart, mine more than
most, I’ll readily admit. But I have eyes and ears and frequently
go out to see and hear things up close and personal. If the
suggestion is the moral I took away was wrong? Fine. From a learned
man such as yourself, I’ll consider any criticism seriously. But if
the suggestion is I can’t decipher what I really saw or
really heard? That’s where we’ll part company.