Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Focus on the Family responds to WoW
Focus on the Family founder and social conservative commentator James Dobson has baffled his followers and pundits at large with his statements about the presidential campaign. Dobson has said he will not vote for Sen. John McCain, at one point suggested he would not vote in the presidential election, and more recently said he “will certainly vote,” without indicating whom he will support. When WORLD On the Web writer Alisa Harris called Dobson’s various stances a “flip-flop,” however, Focus on the Family took issue with her characterization. See Focus on the Family Action Vice President of Media and Public Relations Gary Schneeberger’s response at the end of Alisa’s updated post here.
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top25 Comments to “Focus on the Family responds to WoW”
Everyone is entitled to change his mind. Circumstances change. To me, this says he is not closed-minded as some of our more liberal friends might suggest.
Report comment to moderator
PLEASE NOTE: This from citizenlink.org
Top Story
April 11, 2008
Commentary: No Flip-Flopping Here
by Gary Schneeberger, vice president
Dr. Dobson is no stranger to criticism, but allegations that he’s wobbled on his standards for selecting a president are simply untrue.
Part of my job involves keeping track of mentions of Focus on the Family and Dr. James Dobson in the media. As you might imagine, with the explosion of the blogosphere, Google alerts letting me know the ministry or the man who founded it have been named in someone’s writings fly into my inbox at roughly the speed of a space shuttle.
Many are positive, many are critical — and most come from blogs with probably no more than a few hundred readers. My reaction in most cases, even the most vicious attacks, is, “Well, everybody’s entitled to an opinion.” But no one is entitled to gerrymander the facts to reach that opinion.
That appears to be what happened in a recent post on the Web site of World magazine titled Religious Right flip-flops. The thesis of blogger Alisa Harris’ commentary is faulty — which might explain why many of her facts are, too. Central to her analysis is that socially conservative evangelicals — that’s “Religious Right” if you’re playing the secular media’s name game — all fit snugly under a single tent; problem is, that never has been accurate. Our movement is a vast and varied one — from political insiders who see pragmatism as the best way to effect long-term change, to more prophetic voices whose allegiance is to principles — not candidates, political parties or even election results.
It is into this second camp that Dr. Dobson falls. Ms. Harris accuses him, quite incorrectly, of “flip-flopping” on the standards that will guide his ballot-casting this November. The truth? Dr. Dobson made it clear, speaking as a private citizen from as early as January 2007, that he could not support Sen. John McCain’s candidacy. He said the same of the candidacies of Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson later last year. He also said, as Ms. Harris notes, he would vote for a third-party candidate if both major parties nominated standard-bearers not committed to the sanctity of human life. That commitment to not cast a ballot for someone who would end preborn life has not wobbled one whit: certainly not in Dr. Dobson’s indication he could vote for either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, the two candidates who unapologetically championed the pro-life cause; or in his endorsement in February of Gov. Huckabee, still in the race at the time.
More disturbing, though, is Ms. Harris’ statement that Dr. Dobson remains unhappy even though the GOP, in McCain, has anointed someone with an “unimpeachable pro-life voting record.” That is patently untrue. Sen. McCain led the charge in the Senate on two bills that would have allocated federal money for lab experiments on human embryos — tiny human lives that would have been killed after the tests were done. Thankfully, President Bush understood that you can’t call yourself pro-life and abide the slaughter of nascent human beings in the name of suspect science. He vetoed the immoral legislation, knowing it would lead to cloning. Dr. Dobson agrees with the president’s position, which is one of the reasons he is “still not happy” with the GOP’s ’08 nominee.
Still, Ms. Harris goes on to say Dr. Dobson recently told Sean Hannity he would vote for Sen. McCain anyway — evidence of yet another apparent flip-flop. In truth, what Dr. Dobson said on Hannity’s America a few weeks ago was that he certainly would vote, but gave no indication for whom, emphasizing the importance of the candidates and issues down the ballot and expressing his belief that we have a God-given responsibility to let our voices be heard. Again, there is nothing inconsistent in these pronouncements.
Dr. Dobson has spent 35 years “in the arena,” as Theodore Roosevelt said, defending the value of all human life and the importance of traditional marriage as a building block of society. He’s taken his fair share of hits from the media (even the Christian media, including World) for the stands he’s taken. Those positions spring not from expediency, but from conscience and principle. It is an honor to serve such a man, because he is the antithesis of a flip-flopper. He is guided by deeply held biblical convictions — and is unafraid to defend his beliefs against those who would mock or misrepresent them.
Gary Schneeberger is vice president of media and public relations for Focus on the Family Action.
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites’ content.)
Report comment to moderator
Above is the entire piece found on citizenlink.org
Report comment to moderator
Dobson has the same problem Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have in that they all went way out on the line trying to make sure McCain was not the nominee of the right.
Coulter even said she would campaign for and vote for Hillary to stop McCain if he was the nominee.
If Obama is the nominee then Ann gets off the the hook as far as voting for her and campaigning for her. Al, including Dobon, have some crow eating coming their way in any event.
Report comment to moderator
Llama
Throwing Coulter and Limbaugh into the mix is ridiculous, what you are doing is concocting a political malt, very immature.
Report comment to moderator
I will agree that Dobson is no Coulter and Limbaugh, that it is unfair to lump him in with them. But Llama is right that Dobson did go out of his way to try to keep McCain from getting the nomination. It would have been far better if he’d been honest and said words to the effect that he didn’t want Romney because he was a Mormon or he didn’t want McCain because he wasn’t “Christian enough.” He could have qualified his statements about McCain. He didn’t. Now, he’s stuck with him, and yes, he has to eat a little crow.
These things happen.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
Do you know for a FACT how Dobson believes, and his motives, on all the candidates? Dobson isn’t eating crow, but there are a few who are, just trying to guess.
Report comment to moderator
How dare they disagree with our Alisa! Lemme at ‘em!
Report comment to moderator
Gary Schneeberger wrote:
“That commitment to not cast a ballot for someone who would end preborn life has not wobbled one whit: certainly not in Dr. Dobson’s indication he could vote for either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, the two candidates who unapologetically championed the pro-life cause;”
The problem being that in supporting Mitt Romney, Dr. Dobson was supporting abortion rights in instances of incest or rape.
Report comment to moderator
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” – John Quincy Adams
Report comment to moderator
keithshedron you don’t get it do you?
Report comment to moderator
Don’t get supporting abortion rights? No, I don’t.
Report comment to moderator
keithshedron
Don’t put words in my mouth to spin your story, and then answer it, not to bright.
Report comment to moderator
Who cares?
Report comment to moderator
Who cares?
Report comment to moderator
That would be “not too bright”. That spelling thing. A nuisance I know, but it really is rather important. I am sure you knew that though.
Your post failed to convey any clear intent.In my response, I indicated what was not clear to me. If you seek a different type of response, please take the time to frame a proper question.
Report comment to moderator
Kind of reminds of a stanza in a Sunday school song … “Does she stamp her feet when she doesn’t get her way …” The far right conniption over McCain (we’ll take our marbles and go away) only showed them to lack maturity.
Report comment to moderator
keithshedron – 16
I struggle with the concept of ‘rape’ or ‘incest’ being reason for abortion.
Let me give you an example; if my daughter were to be raped by someone off the street, I’m not so sure I would not agree with her, if she wanted to abort. Another example; if my daughter were to be raped by a male relative and became pregnant, UNDERAGE, I would think she could obtain an abortion.
The rape in either case, …. taking our daughter to a qualified doctor, NOT AN ABORTION clinic would be able to get the needed care immediately right after the rape/abuse.
IF our daughter were to agree to have sex with a male relative and she were over the age of 18 that in my mind would not constitute her getting an abortion, even though she is of age and can do whatever she likes. We would be against the decision she made.
Many people agree that rape and incest are two situation that need special attention. Many girls can become pregnant at age 10 or 11. Making a child carry another child after being abused is not right, her health and mental health would be UPPERMOST in our minds. We would need to pray about the situation.
Many people who are adamantly against abortion, as my husband and I are, agree that incest and rape need special consideration.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Thank you for the response. Instances of rape and incest do occur and they certainly are tragic. I have never been involved in either situation, so can only speak broadly, conceding that I have no first hand knowledge of what people go through in dealing with such events.
It is indeed tragic when a very young girl becomes pregnant. Prayer is needed, then, and at all times.
If you don’t mind, can I ask why you are opposed to abortion? Not a trick question I promise! I just want to know if we are on the same page. To clarify my view, abortion is killing an innocent child.
Keith
Report comment to moderator
I am a Born Again Christian. I have worked with those who offer alternatives to abortion. I don’t believe in abortion when there has been no rape, or molestation.
Report comment to moderator
Killing an innocent child, however the child is conceived should not be condoned. Either the child is a child and should not be killed or any child can be killed.
Report comment to moderator
theselittleones
The health and mental health of a child who has been raped must be taken into account. A child who has been abused is tormented by the abuse, they don’t get over it. To make a child carry another child, every single day until the child is born, reliving that horrible time, and looking down to see the results is not healthy, nor should a child be made to suffer for nine months more.
I have spoken with those who have been raped, its a horrific crime, something which needs special attention.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, definitely the health and mental health of a child must be taken into account. A child that results from a rape or otherwise is not any less in deserving of life.
Report comment to moderator
Theselittleones
You are purposely misreading my post. I believe that a child which has been raped should not be made to carry another child. The health and mental health of the child needs to be considered FIRST.
Would you stand by and watch your 11 or 12 year old daughter, after being raped, them make her carry a child,….. which for 9 months would remind her of that horrible rape? I certainly would not. When a rape occurs, and there is reason to believe that a pregnancy could be the result, it can be taken care of within days in a hospital.
I have spoken with women who have been molested and raped, it never goes away, the pain is there.
Report comment to moderator
I would not just stand by. I would pray, offer encouragement, support and love. The pregnancy that may result is a baby, like any other baby, that ought not be killed.
The evils in this world can not be fixed by more evil. Taking the life of a baby that is a result of a rape is no less an evil as that of any other pregnancy.
God’s grace is sufficient for all who seek Him.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!