I admire the work of both gentlemen immensely, but I really don't think now's the time for Ben Stein and Mark Levin (on his blog at NRO) to be zeroing in on the hypocrisy and opportunism of Democrats, despite the temptation and as long as the list of examples may be (for both political parties, really).
The Spectacle Blog
No, we're not talking about Brooklyn baseball. We're talking Albert Haynesworth of the Tennessee Titans. Yesterday, with malice aforethought, Haynesworth spiked an opposing player in the aftermath of a touchdown. The injured man -- Dallas' offensive center Andre Gurode -- was slashed by Haynesworth's spikes. The wound reportedly required 30 stiches to close.
Set aside the irony that despite the fact Terrell Owens was on the field, the worst offense was committed by someone else. There's no humor in this thuggery. The NFL will decide what punishment to impose on Haynesworth this week. Anything less than permanent expulsion from the game is too little.
This post title comes from a great routine by the late comedian Bill Hicks, whom I wrote about for NRO a couple years back here.
I will be on Hannity and Colmes tonight around 9:30 (eastern) discussing Jack Murtha's willingness to make a deal with undercover FBI agents offering bribes.
I thought I might put you off disputing the religious reason question and I apologize for any offense given. Nevertheless, it is a red herring.
In working toward refutation of my argument, you note that Dobson said God wanted him to intervene on Toomey's behalf. That's not the same thing as supporting a specific policy position by adverting to scripture or personal revelation from the Almighty. It's one thing if Dobson says, God wants me to oppose abortion. It's another if Dobson says, "God doesn't want you to allow legalized abortion" and leaves it at that. The latter instance would be what I think you were talking about earlier when you said he failed to offer public reasons in favor of restricting abortion.
Point taken on Dobson, Shawn, and I never presumed you were one of the pundits who wrote from assumptions rather than real reporting. You're too good for that.
You raise the crux of the argument when you wonder whether Dobson's rhetoric contributes to stasis rather than moving the issue ahead. The time frame 97-98 is significant here. I wrote a column called "My Christian Radio Can Beat Up Your New York Times" at about that time, and pointed out that I could listen to a whole day of Christian radio and hear nothing about politics. At about that time, on the issue of abortion, that began to change in 97-98, with Dobson and D. James Kennedy leading the way.
Why did they do that? Kennedy is plainly conscience-stricken and feels that he has to speak out against mass murder. Dobson plainly stated that he was fed up with the Republicans in power doing nothing about abortion, and threatened to leave the party and "take a lot of people with me." Made the cover of Time Magazine, he did.
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.