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.