LJWorld.com / "Could a Fred Thompson campaign deliver a blow to Brownback's chances?" by The Brownback Report

Blogs home Staff blogs The Brownback Report

Could a Fred Thompson campaign deliver a blow to Brownback's chances?

Campaign News

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) Poll: Brownback trails frontrunners and Fred Thompson: Rudy Giuliani keeps the upper hand in the race for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in the United States, according to a poll by Gallup released by USA Today. 31 percent of respondents would vote for the former New York City mayor in a 2008 primary. Arizona senator John McCain is second with 22 per cent, followed by actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson with 12 per cent, and former House of Representatives speaker Newt Gingrich with eight percent. Support is lower for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Kansas senator Sam Brownback, former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, Texas congressman Ron Paul, Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

An unscientific straw poll for GOP bloggers also presents some interesting results regarding Thompson.

(Washington Times) Candidates help keep convention aid in bill: The majority of the Senate's presidential candidates voted yesterday to keep $100 million in an "emergency" funding bill to provide security at the 2008 Democratic and Republican national conventions. Two declared candidates -- Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, and Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican -- voted to strip the funding because they thought it did not belong in an emergency spending measure to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(The Jewish Week) Presidential politics could scuttle border reform: Jewish leaders this week warned that presidential politics could scuttle the push for comprehensive immigration reform, a top priority for a long list of Jewish groups. While the House unexpectedly took the lead in the push for a broad immigration bill, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), key supporters of a Senate bill supported by most Jewish groups last year, have backed away from the issue, and Jewish leaders say presidential politics is the reason. McCain, the putative GOP frontrunner, was co-sponsor of the more progressive Senate bill last year, along with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) But while McCain has not renounced that approach, immigration advocates say he has clearly cooled to the issue as he courts the GOP conservative wing, which he needs to survive next year's presidential primaries. "We are hoping he won't walk away from the good work he did last year," said Gideon Aronoff, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), which has led the immigration battle in the Jewish community. "My sense is that ultimately, he will be a positive force." But McCain is also getting hammered from the right on the issue - as is Sen. Brownback, also a 2008 GOP contender and also a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform.

Issues

(Washington Times) Study finds children bombarded by junk-food ads: The Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit health care policy resource organization in the District, produced the study, which evaluated advertisements to children from 13 networks in 2005, including all genres of programming viewed by children. The study examined 30 times more television programming than previous studies. The foundation touts the study as the largest ever conducted of television food advertising to children because it accounts for cable and commercial-free networks, such as PBS. Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, recently convened a task force to examine current trends in media and the potential effects on obesity rates. The group includes food companies such as Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola Co. and General Mills, and proponents of curtailing the ad blitz -- the American Society for Nutrition and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Mr. Brownback, a conservative who is not often linked with advocating enhanced government oversight over business, said that while he hopes the task force will come up with effective recommendations to slow the rising obesity rate in children, he did not take government intervention off the table. "What I believe is that if there is not an improvement in the number of obese children and advertisers don't step up and advertise more healthy, then you'll see the regulatory framework move forward," Mr. Brownback said.

(Amarillo Globe, Texas) Complaint against Priests for Life filed with IRS: A Catholic abortion rights group claims Priests for Life has violated Internal Revenue Service rules by posting online videos promoting the presidential candidacy of Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. The Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of the anti-abortion Catholic order that is moving its headquarters to Amarillo, on Wednesday called the complaint Catholics for Free Choice has lodged with the IRS a "silly" intimidation tactic. ... The IRS Web site, www.irs.gov, states tax-exempt charitable organizations are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for local, state or federal public office. An organization found to have violated the prohibition could have its tax-exempt status denied or revoked and face imposition of certain excise taxes. CFFC President Jon O'Brien said the complaint specifically points to two PFL-TV videos posted on the PFL Web site as "flagrant" endorsements for Brownback. ... Pavone personally endorsed Brownback in January. In a February interview, he said he serves on Brownback's committee "in a personal capacity" and does not use PFL resources for helping the Brownback committee. ... "The videos are not on Father Frank Pavone's Web site, they're on Priests for Life's Web site," O'Brien said. "You don't need a rocket science degree to figure that out." Pavone said the video "is not an endorsement from Priests for Life" for Brownback. Priests for Life does encourage voters to pursue candidates backing anti-abortion issues, but does not push specific candidates in races, he said. "We want people to understand you have to elect people who are going to protect life," Pavone said. "As an organization, we have never been a partisan organization. We don't ally ourselves with any particular party. This falls into the category of issue advocacy, and the IRS makes a distinction between issue advocacy and candidate advocacy."

(Christian Newswire) Brownback introduces ban on human cloning: Concerned Women for America strongly supports the bi-partisan legislation introduced by Senators Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) to ban human cloning.

Campaign Stops

(WCBD-TV 2) Brownback back in South Carolina: Brownback is scheduled to speak the "A Night To Honor Israel" event tonight at the Victory Baptist Church of James Island in Charleston, S.C.

_The Brownback Report will appear Monday through Friday. If you've seen a news story or other blog entry about the GOP presidential hopeful that we've missed, do let us know._

By George Diepenbrock

March 29, 2007

The Brownback Report

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

29 March 2007
at 11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheNorthlander (Anonymous) says…

Wait….when did Sen. Sam Brownback EVER have a chance????
29 March 2007
at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KS (Anonymous) says…

Could Fred Thompson's run hurt Brownback? What a dumb question. I lean to the “R” side, but poor ole Sam just doesn't stand a chance.
29 March 2007
at 12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

http://www.nysun.com/article/51441

http://www.silive.com/news/advance/in…

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysi…

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
29 March 2007
at 12:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Freedom (Anonymous) says…

I expect support for Brownback to decline. Right now he is polling around 1-2%. But when voters learn about the Senator's pathetic legislation, he's going to drop to zero.

I am referring to the ridiculous bill cosponsored by Senator Brownback named the 'International Marriage Broker Regulation Act'(or IMBRA). Brownback's bill is one of the most pathetic, unconstitutional, anti family laws in the history of the United States. This draconian bill, which became law on March 6th, 2006, implies that ALL Americans (mostly Conservative American men) are violent sexual abusers and wife beaters unless proven innocent. i disagree!!!

IMBRA was discreetly attached to another bill, the 'Violence Against Women Act of 2005'. This law is better described as the 'International Romance Regulation Act', which is exactly what it is. Under Senator Brownback's outrageous law, all Americans must submit a detailed criminal background report in order to communicate with a woman in a foreign country. How absurd! The form is likely to get lost in the mail, and she will have no incentive to respond and send back her approval (again by postal mail) without a photo or bio. This law applies for all forms of communication including: e-mail, telephone, postal mail, text messaging, and in-person meetings. Penalties are severe: $20,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison for saying 'Hello'!

In order to drum up support for his atrocious bill, Senator Brownback along with other proponents (radical feminist group Tahirih Justice Center) concocted the sinister-sounding label 'marriage broker'. What is a 'marriage broker'? It is nothing more than an introduction or penpal service. So now all-of-a-sudden according to the U.S. Government, a penpal service will now be known as a 'marriage broker'. For your information Senator Brownback, nobody is getting married, and nobody is being 'brokered' when two consenting heterosexual adults decide to communicate.
29 March 2007
at 12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Freedom (Anonymous) says…

This law also scrutinizes ALL international marriages no matter how the couples actually met. Most international marriages do not involve sinister-sounding 'marriage brokers', but because the government has no way of knowing how a couple actually met (it is none of their business anyways), they decided to crack-down on all visa petitioners. Now any irrelevant DUI's, misdemeanors, fraudulent protection orders, and even arrests not leading to any conviction must be disclosed to your fiancee, which is a good way to become un-engaged. This is exactly what Senator Brownback and the feminists want. Their goal was to shut down introduction agencies and to keep American men away from foreign women. This law is a scandal based on fraud, deception, cooked statistics, 'manufactured' hysteria and propaganda regarding abuse and trafficking of foreign women to support ulterior motives. In reality, there has never been any convictions for human trafficking involving an american-owned introduction agency. And there are no documented cases prior to marriage of abuse of foreign women by americans who used a penpal or introduction service (what the governmnet now incorrectly labels a “marriage broker”).

On December 16th, 2005, Senator Brownback told his colleagues in the Senate that the “Tahirih Justice Center are frontline experts” and that customers of 'marriage brokers' (a false label) “need to clean up their act”. No Senator Brownback, you “need to clean up your act”. After he was elected, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. But his draconian law violates the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

Senator Brownback claims to be Pro Life, yet for this bill he teamed-up with radical left wing Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) who openly supports the murder of human fetuses. He claims to support traditional marriages, yet his asinine bill criminalizes communication and love letters by heterosexuals. He has partnered with a wacko feminist not-for-profit organization named after an Iranian martyr: the Tahirih Justice Center. Senator Brownback has alot of explaining to do.

So far Brownback hasn't talked about his IMBRA law during the campaign. Is he afraid of something?
29 March 2007
at 12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

Freedom: Every single one of your posts deals with this IMBRA Act. You must have personal experience, or perhaps you own an introduction agency? I agree it is stupid, but what can you tell us about your personal experiences regarding this issue?
29 March 2007
at 12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

There is a good chance that he is one of those Aides that spend their time running around on the net and rewriting Wiki Pages and stuff.
29 March 2007
at 2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

srj (Anonymous) says…

The conservatives where begging for someone, anyone with half a chance to enter the race.

Just shows that they will not even vote for McCain or Giuliani in 2008. Just remember Karl Rove saying millions of Bush voters stayed away in 2000 after word of his long ago drunk-driving arrest came out. So they would rather not vote then lets s dem win.
29 March 2007
at 3:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Fred Thompson could have Sammy for a midnight snack and still be hungry.
29 March 2007
at 4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

I can't say I know all that much about IMBRA but I'm intrigued as to how one statute would manage to violate “the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution” - especially the Third Amendment, which deals with quartering soldiers in peoples' houses.
29 March 2007
at 4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

yes, I noted that too James! you know, quartering soldiers…government intrusion into the home? real stretch.

also, how in heck does it violate the tenth amendment? unless its Kansas brides for Oklahoma grooms? perish the thought!
29 March 2007
at 4:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

regarding the blog itself…Brownback has never had a chance. to say he has been “hammered” by conservatives regarding his illegal immigration votes is *putting it mildly*! Mccain won't get the nod for the same reason.
leaves RudyG. and if FredT wades in fully, he takes much of rudyG's support as the conservative base would rather vote for some one with a conservative history, instead of Rudy's promise to appoint judges like thomas and alito. we're smart enough to know that beyond the judges, he'd have thousands of other appointments to make.

thanks for the article links Aggie though they were a bit off topic! glad the mayor of NYC is opposed to the retreat and defeat bill passed in the senate.

“any second year cadet at West Point knows you don't set a date for withdrawal.” john mccain.
29 March 2007
at 4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

Good point James! and Gnome. I was vagely aware of IMBRA, and thought it was a total over-reach for the problem it was trying to solve, but also very similar in what we (feds and states) have been doing in so many ways in the criminal justice system. Kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer, and sc*** a alot of people in the process. Policy outcomes, be damned.
.
And I agree with James' observation about Senator Fred T.
..
We are still waiting to hear from you Freedom…
29 March 2007
at 6:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Freedom (Anonymous) says…

No, I do not own and I have never worked at an introduction agency. I am just a concerned American citizen who feels that my Constitutional rights have been violated. And no, I am not an Aide, and I have never written anything for Wikipedia.

Senator Brownback's law is the most pathetic and atrocious law that I have ever heard of in my life. How dare the government try to criminalize communication between 2 consenting adults. How dare the government interfere with someone's right to search for love and the possibility to start a family. Think about it. This is the kind of law that belongs in a Communist country. This law is something that Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler would be proud of. I don't pay taxes so the government can decide or regulate who I am allowed to talk to.

This law has scandal written all over it. Like I said in a previous message, the proponents manufactured a hysteria regarding abuse of foreign women and totally non-existant human trafficking. IMBRA is based on fraud, deception, propaganda, sensationalism, and cooked statistics to support ulterior motives. The feminist proponents of IMBRA could care less about women in foreign countries. Their goal was to keep American men away from foreign women.

Senator Brownback and the Press have refused to talk about this. i want to know why? Does Senator Brownback have something to hide?

This law contains derogatory, offensive, misleading, and false labels like “mail order bride” and “marriage broker” which the feminists and Senator Brownback believe is acceptable to use. For your information Senator Brownback, when 2 consenting heterosexual adults decide to communicate, nobody is being shipped through the mail, nobody is being ordered, nobody is getting married, and nobody is being brokered.

Here is how Brownback's 'International Marriage Broker Regulation Act' violates our Constitution:
Amendment I - IMBRA prohibits freedom of speech and the right of people to assemble in peace.
Amendment iii - imbra violates the sanctity of our homes.
Amendment iv - imbra will violate our homes and conduct unreasonable searches without warrant or probable cause.
Amendment V - IMBRA assumes guilt of abuse without a trial and compels a person to be a witness against themself. It deprives innocent people of liberty without due process of law. It requires private companies to collect data for public use without just compensation.
Amendment vi - imbra finds that men are found guilty of abuse without a trial and the burden of proof is placed upon them to be innocent.
Amendment ix - imbra infringes upon basic rights such as marriage and privacy.
Amendment X - No where in the Constitution does the government have the power to restrict travel, communication and marriage to people.
29 March 2007
at 7:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KsTwister (Anonymous) says…

Brownback never showed up to vote except his own bills,as Pres he probably have to get a look alike. It's the new rave I hear.
29 March 2007
at 7:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Uh, people, I hate to break it to you but the IMBRA regulates marriage brokers, not private citizens!

This law was encated to stop the “marriage” of foreigners to Amercian citizens solely for the purpose of th foreing spouse obtaining Amercian citizenship.

jeeeezzzzuuuuusssssss, people!

Do a little research before you go blathering all over your keyboard and the net!

More liberal spin!

The Act:

http://tahirih.org/legal/docs/Summary…

http://www.melindaspenpals.com/blog2/

Thanks.

Marion.
29 March 2007
at 7:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

The second link is an opposing (sort of)viewpoint.

Thanks.

Marion.
29 March 2007
at 7:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

Marion, jeeezzzus back to you! re-read the thread. We “people” you blast as blathering is only one: 'Freedom' who is obviously obsessed about this issue. And I would suggest that those who are anti-big government conservatives, (not liberals) are the ones most p.o'd about the IMBRA.
.
I just think it is interesting that this one person posts ONLY about this issue and ALWAYS posts very long repetitive gobblegobble. (read his history) Aren't you?
29 March 2007
at 8:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

hahhahhahaha. RagingBear @ 12:59 was on the right trail. A google search on Brownback and IMBRA shows that freedom is using his constitutional rights to post all over the nation on boards about this issue, including Iowa, Washington DC, North Carolina, etc. One of the forums reflects an ID with an Illinois city hometown, if that can be believed. He is obviously trying to raise the profile of this issue, which is important to maybe .000001 percent of the people.
.
Gotta give him an “A” for learning how to cut and past. He must have taken class in Richard's school.
.
Not that Goof is a Brownback supporter or an IMBRA supporter. But Goof thinks that freedom should come clean and tell us more of his story in 1st person terms. freedom doesn't understand that most of us really know (well, kinda) each other.
29 March 2007
at 8:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Freedom (Anonymous) says…

Marion, thanks for linking an Anti-IMBRA website. I appreciate your help.

But you don't know what you're talking about. You did not read my original messages. I have done a tremendous amount of research after I learned about Senator Brownback's insane law.

The reason you see comments like this around the net is because the media is ignoring IMBRA. And Senator Brownback isn't talking about IMBRA in his campaign. I want to know why???

The name of the law, 'International Marriage Broker Act' is misleading. First, nobody is necessarily getting maried, and nobody is being 'brokered'. Second, much more than just 'marriage brokers' (formerly known as penpal sites) are effected by the law.

There are the customers of marriage brokers (formerly penpal sites) who must now go through the hassle of sending police reports overseas by postal mail without any photo or bio of the American. Then the foreign person must send his/her approval (again by postal mail) back to the American-based 'marriage broker' (formerly known as a penpal service). Of course the foreigner will have no incentive to send back the approval anyways without knowing what the person looks like! And there is a 50% chance the first mailing with an American postage stamp will be lost or stolen before before it arrives at the foreign destination. All of this must be complied with before the customers of a 'marriage broker' can communicate. Another thing, even before this ridiculous IMBRA law, often the foreigner may not want to correspond because there wasn't any physical attraction.
29 March 2007
at 8:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Freedom (Anonymous) says…

If a couple decides to get married, they will have to comply with much more regulations than ever before when the couple applies for a visa. Like I said, most international marriages do not involve 'marriage brokers' (formerly penpal sites). The majority are couples that met by other methods: met in a bar, met on a sidewalk, met on a business trip, met on a vacation, whatever. There are no statistics on how people meet, because that question is basically nobody's business. Because the government has no way of knowing or confirming how a couple actually met, they decided to crack down on ALL visa applicants! Is that fair? This law was supposed to punish/regulate 'marriage brokers' and their customers, but now someone has to comply with a 'marriage broker' law that NEVER used a 'marriage broker'!

Prior to IMBRA, background checks of Americans were already done, but now things like old DUIs, fraudulent Protection Orders, and even arrests NOT leading to conviction ALL must be disclosed. Due to cultural differences pertaining to alcohol and fraudulent Protection Orders, that could be enough to break-off an engagement, which is what the radical feminist proponents of IMBRA want.

Marion, this law has nothing to do with people just trying to get a green card or eventually citizenship. The proponents want everyone to think it's about protecting foreign women from abuse and human trafficking. But in reality, the feminist Bahai proponents of IMBRA have a bizarre view of equality. They believe that the women are exploited, and their goal is to stop American men from communicating with foreign women.

And, no this is not liberal spin. Actually the proponents of IMBRA are liberal (except for Senator Brownback) because they are feminists. Most people opposed to IMBRA like me are conservative.
29 March 2007
at 8:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Freedom (Anonymous) says…

oldgoof, my comments above are not a Cut and Paste.

What's wrong with getting involved with something you believe in? That's what these message boards are for. IMBRA is a Federal law which applies to every state. I see nothing wrong with posting anywhere in the country or the world.

It's OK for the proponents of IMBRA to be from just a few states (Washington, Kansas, Virginia), but they can have their legislation passed which effects every other state?

As far as using Cut & Paste, that's not much different than a newspaper using the same article from Associated Press, Reuters, or UPI that appears accross the country.

You may not care much about IMBRA because you are not effected. Please look at it this way. IMBRA is an example of a law that is blatantly unconstitutional. It is an example of government incompetence. What the hell is going on in Washington? Doesn't anybody read the bills they are voting on? Doesn't anybody check if a bill is unconstitutional? They didn't even bother to count the votes when this bill was passed after 5:00 PM on the Saturday before Christmas of 2005.

We have a system where a wacko not-for-profit orgaization named after an Iranian martyr gets their law passed for the entire country! Nobody checked if any of their hype and fuzzy math was accurate or not.

I didn't ask for IMBRA. In fact I knew nothing about this until 1 month after the bill was signed by President Bush. This law is a scandal that the media is ignoring. They should because scandals $ell newspapers.

Unfortunately for you, a major proponent of IMBRA, Senator Brownback, happens to be from Kansas. If you don't kike my postings, you can just skip over them. Thanks.
29 March 2007
at 9:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Well, much as I could write a book on the various Constitutional issues alledged, I've hold myself back. Needless to say, the Third Amendment claim (and the rest to lesser degrees) is a stretch.

There is a vague First Amendment claim. I suppose one could say (as no doubt IMBRA opponents must do) that this law forbids them “to say hello.” Errr…..no, not really. If you'd want to make a First Amendment case about it I suppose you could claim that it 'chills' free speach rights. But that usually means that there's such a cloud placed over any speech that speakers don't know what's 'okay' and are afraid to say anything.

All the stuff about invasion of the home or making all men into criminals is silly.

There is also (mostly in the Tenth stuff) a plausible claim that the federal government hasn't been granted power “to restrict travel, communication and marriage.”

Well, certainly marriage. But IMBRA I'm quite certain doesn't restrict marriage. (Not that I'm not partial to getting government involved in the marriage business less than it already is.)

Congress, however, does have the power to regulate what this law regulates - interstate and international commerce. You're free “to say hello” to anyone you'd like; you're just not free to being paying someone to find the person “to say hello” to absent any and all regulation. My understanding is that IF you can find a broker who'll introduce you for FREE then you're not covered by this law and you don't have comply with its various (probably poorly conceived) provisions. (I would think it also obvious that Congress may regulate immigration and visas in any manner not violative of due process.)

IMBRA is probably overkill and not well thought out. But there's nothing unconstitutional about stupid laws. If there were, most laws would disappear.
29 March 2007
at 9:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

I also note that the news says that Focus on the Family cult-leader James Dobson says he doesn't think Fred Thompson is a “Christian.”

Expect Thompson's poll rating to rise rapidly. You can't pay for that type of positive publicity. After all, the typical voter is more likely to wonder if Dobson is a Christian before they'll wonder about Thompson.
29 March 2007
at 10:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

Focus Clarifies Dr. Dobson's Comments on Sen. Thompson

Thu Mar 29, 7:18 PM ET

To: religion editors

Contact: Nima Reza of Focus on the Family, +1-719-548-4570, culturalissues@family.org

colorado springs, Colo., March 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Focus on the Family issued the following statement today regarding a story that appeared Wednesday
on the U.S. News & World Report Web site quoting the ministry's founder and chairman, James C. Dobson, Ph.D:

“We welcome the opportunity to clarify Dr. Dobson's remarks that were first reported in Dan Gilgoff's online article titled 'Dobson Offers Insight on 2008
Republican Hopefuls: Focus on the Family Founder Snubs Thompson, Praises Gingrich.' At the outset, it's important to note that this headline is an outright
mischaracterization of the views Dr. Dobson expressed. His words weren't intended to represent either an endorsement of former Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich or a disparagement of former Sen. Fred Thompson. Dr. Dobson appreciates Sen. Thompson's solid, pro-family voting record and his position that
Roe v. Wade
was wrongly decided.

“In his conversation with Mr. Gilgoff, Dr. Dobson was attempting to highlight that to the best of his knowledge, Sen. Thompson hadn't clearly communicated
his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him. Dr. Dobson told Mr. Gilgoff he had never met Sen. Thompson
and wasn't certain that his understanding of the former senator's religious convictions was accurate. Unfortunately, these qualifiers weren't reported
by Mr. Gilgoff. We were, however, pleased to learn from his spokesperson that Sen. Thompson professes to be a believer.
….

“In conclusion, we would caution friends of our ministry not to believe what they read about Dr. Dobson in the secular media today. Never in the 30-year
history of this ministry has there been more misreporting and outright distortion of his beliefs and teachings. It is apparent that those who represent
a liberal worldview seek to marginalize him and confuse our friends. Anyone who ever has a question concerning what they read about Dr. Dobson or Focus
on the Family is encouraged to contact us for clarification. The chances are they have been misinformed.”
29 March 2007
at 10:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

Oh James,
I'm disappointed in you, as I have often found you a thoughtful and considerate poster; and I have frequently disagreed but respected your perspective. calling Focus on the Family a “cult” is wrong, inflammatory, and ignores their history and functions as an organization. it is no cult. it does, however, often represent the values and concerns of conservative Christians.
29 March 2007
at 11:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

James, I'd have to agree with gnome on this. “Cults” usually worship a particular person, making them into a God or someone with divine properties.

Dobson and his cohorts, like most large Evangelical “mega-churches” and televangelists, worship two things above all else: Money and power. They use “Christianity” as an asset, as working capital, as a means to an end. Dobson skips out on the fake hair, the thick eyeliner, and the polyester suits… but that's about it. Smart, really, when yout think about it: By sticking to radio, he doesn't have to squander his immense riches on fancy clothes, a wardrobe budget that would eat into his revenue stream.

It's not a cult. It's big business, plain and simple. :)

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
31 March 2007
at 2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

I was told that there was some after discussion about my post (LJW doesn't really lend itself to multi-day discussions).

I refer readers again to my comment. The “cult” is not FOTF but rather Dobson. More accurately, Dobson is the “focus” (NPI) of a “personality cult.” While the phrase is modern (from the Soviet Union) its practice is age-old - much like how the ancients once attributed god-like characteristics to various leaders. This was less god-like in the sense of being capable of hurling bolts of lightening but rather being above question for devotees. (See worship of W as Christ-like for comparison - see the documentary “Jesus Camp” capturing young Christianists 'worshipping' before a picture of George Bush, for example, or the sentiment “G.B. was put in place by the Lord and I'll support him to the end.”)

Dobson has transformed his narrow speciality - child development - into a world-explaining, comprehensive religion-like belief system with himself as the rule-giver, a/k/a, a cult.