WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
James Dobson: “I would pull that lever”
On “The Dennis Prager Show” today, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson said:
“I have only endorsed one presidential candidate in my life and that was George Bush in the second term after I had watched him for four years. I did not do that in his first term. So I’m very reluctant to do that. You marry a politician you can be a widow pretty quickly. …
“But I can tell you that if I had to go into … the voting booth today, I would pull that lever [for McCain-Palin]. …
“[W]hen I look at the choices that are ahead and what the implications are for this country, and now especially with this selection, with just an outstanding VP candidate as a running mate, I tell you what I am relieved and very excited.”
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
back to top64 Comments to “James Dobson: “I would pull that lever””
I think McCain just won the election.
Report comment as offensive
“You marry a politician you can be a widow pretty quickly. …”
Truer words were never spoken. I make up my own mind about candidates, but I know Dobson’s opinion means a lot to many others here, and so, I’m grateful he’s back to voting again and telling everyone about it!
Report comment as offensive
That depends on whether Gov. Palin lied about the bridge to nowhere when she introduced herself to the country today. She told us that she told Congress, “Thanks but no thanks.” Unfortunately, in 2006 she told the Anchorage newspaper she wanted the money right away while the Alaska congressional delegation was still in a strong enough position, in the Republican majority, to attach the necessary earmark.
That’s right, the princes of the right lied.
Report comment as offensive
Night Train: I don’t. I think he just threw his judgment into serious doubt by picking a political neophyte to be second in line to the presidency with himself 72 years old.
Biden is boring but he’s also seasoned and capable. When people consider the consequence of the worst happening and the country being led by Palin or Biden, a lot of them will pull the lever for Obama.
Also, I think Dobson’s influence over voters is a great deal less than it might have been in the past. People are getting tired of heavyhanded moralists telling them how to conduct their private lives.
Report comment as offensive
Keep spinning, Scroop. The rest of us will be shouting Woo-hoo!
Report comment as offensive
I’m with Dobson on the “relief.” I have wanted badly to vote against Obama–I thought I’d never feel more strongly about voting against any candidate than I did about some of the last few Democrats, but Obama is appalling. (#1 most liberal choosing the #3 most liberal, and even voting against medical care for newborns from botched abortions, the company he keeps, the things he believes, and last night’s class warfare speech….) But I didn’t trutst McCain. He has socked it to conservatives too many times. If he didn’t pick a strong conservative, I felt like I was going to have to go third party and leave the results to God. I’ll still leave the results to God, but I’m relieved and happy with this choice. If he’d chosen a pro-abortion running mate, I think he would have guaranteed a loss. Romney or just about anybody else would have been a tight race. Now, my gut feeling is he won the election today.
Report comment as offensive
Sorry, the pointheth lieth. She will look as ridiculous as Lena Lamont when they opened the curtain and the audience saw McCain’s political operators.
Report comment as offensive
SteveG, we’ll see. I respect your opinion, but I disagree. And I agree with you that Dobson doesn’t have the influence he used to. His endorsement isn’t going to change many minds. But I think his reaction is an excellent barometer of how evangelicals feel. Until now, millions of them were indifferent to McCain, and would have stayed home. But now they’ve got their own Barack Obama to be excited about, and they’re going to turn out in droves, IMO>
Report comment as offensive
“But I think his reaction is an excellent barometer of how evangelicals feel. Until now, millions of them were indifferent to McCain, and would have stayed home. But now they’ve got their own Barack Obama to be excited about, and they’re going to turn out in droves,”
Nailed it in one.
Report comment as offensive
For a view of downtown Wasilla, check the “Mudflats” blog.
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/
The locals think Sarah was a real beaut, all right. In her zeal for good government, she had to pay a developer $1.7 for the land for the Wasilla sports complex — after she refused an offer of one-tenth that amount and then lost a lawsuit for imminent domain. As a result, she left the town with higher taxes and fewer services — but with a very happy developer!
Report comment as offensive
Scroop, sorry that you’re so upset that a woman politician with definite conservative and Christian values has gotten the VP spot. I think you’re going to be mighty disappointed when they get that closet open and there’s nothing but parkas, mukluks, and NO skeletons.
Report comment as offensive
MIM 11
Don’t forget all the blogs that ’some’ people rely on for the news.
Report comment as offensive
You liberals/leftists should watch what you say about small towns. You keep claiming you’re not elitists, but every time you open your mouths, you prove you are.
Report comment as offensive
I think we will see a race to the bottom surpassing just about anything seen in our history. The bores are tunneling down at warp speed.
Report comment as offensive
Scroop has got me to thinking. When you think of how vicious, unjust and hateful the left was to Clarence Thomas (a conservative African-American), I would not be surprised if Sarah Palin (a conservative woman) comes under a heavy barrage of hatred and deceit to smear her. However, there is a chance that many on the left know that this could backfire badly.
Report comment as offensive
McCain is riding the right like a tame pony. He is brilliantly deceptive. I’m printing off all these Whoo-hoos…for use later. Victoria, you’re praying for McCain to win, right?
Report comment as offensive
To SM, not sure what the legal terminology is in Alaska, but where I live, when the government takes land from the private sector for public use, the correct term is “Eminent Domain”, not “Imminent Domain” as you stated in #10 above.
However, your terminology does exist. I found a myspace site for a punk rock group that calls themselves “Imminent Domain”. I am posting the link so you can check them out, they’re not too bad.
http://www.myspace.com/imminentdomainband
Report comment as offensive
Scott, this is going to be neck-in-neck for awhile at least. We don’t know how Palin will perform in the VP debate. But for right now, it’s whoo-hoo time.
Report comment as offensive
I can now vote for McCain too. I wasn’t sure what I was going to do, but now that the Republican party has shown me that they don’t just want the social conservative vote, but they want their platform as well, I can vote Republican again hurray!
Report comment as offensive
NJLawyer: Scroop didn’t say anything about “small towns.” He offered some very specific information about Palin’s poor governing.
What kind of tools do you use to stretch that into a blanket statement against small towns?
By the way, I love small towns and as soon as I can find a way to relocate, I’m going to live in one. So maybe YOU should knock off the unwarranted assumptions, eh?
Report comment as offensive
Did ya go to Scroopy’s link? Full of snark, and so is Scroopy, all over this board today.
Even I said some nice things about Biden last week. Haven’t heard anything but put downs about Ms. Palin from the opposition. But that’s how you guys live.
Report comment as offensive
Enjoy NJL, enjoy… “you guys”. I hope you don’t lawyer like you generalize…
Report comment as offensive
Whoo-hoo!
Report comment as offensive
James Dobson, today’s typical evangelical leader.
Report comment as offensive
Scott, NJL has read the other posts about Sarah Palin in which several people discounted her and her experience because she was city council member and mayor of a small town. Try to keep up. Otherwise, don’t comment.
I should think that liberals would not want to compare a woman with 12 years of experience in elected office with a junior senator who has spent most of his only senate term campaigning. But I suppose they know better than I.
Remember, the young inexperienced Obama is running for the top position while the young slightly more experienced Palin is in the #2 spot.
Report comment as offensive
Kyle, there’s an enormous difference between being mayor of a small town — or even a medium sized city — ans vice president or president. (And while she’s running for #2 she could become #1 at any time — that’s part of the vp’s role — so that darn well better be part of your assessment.)
I’d much rather have a Senator who’s served in the U.S. Senate than the mayor of a small town trying to run the country. Ideally I’d rather have someone who has been the governor of a large state, but none of those are running this time.
Thanks to Joel Mark for more amusing wilful blindness in #15 … sure, it’s the left that engages in smearing thier opponents. I haven’t laughed so hard in days.
Report comment as offensive
NJLawyer at #21: Did ya go to Scroopy’s link? Full of snark, and so is Scroopy, all over this board today.
Uhh … what snark? I went to the link. I found a picture of the town and a rather sober and serious perspective by an Alaskan as to her fitness for the job.
Snark? Not in that article. Did YOU read it? Because I really don’t fathom how you could dismiss it as snark if you had.
Report comment as offensive
Can you imagine a place where nothing happens? That appears to be Wasilla, where a future occupant of the White House was until 19 months ago. Thats right — nothing. Alaska is a wholly owned subsidiary of BP and other oil companies. I too love moose meat — roasts, not burgers, with a nice claret and new potatoes, preceded by salmon, flatbread and sherry, and followed by gooseberry sorbet. Northern crayfish make a nice side, of course. Very lovely, and best of all is the bread and goat cheese at midnight. But in this world, it’s nothing. Nothing.
Report comment as offensive
Kyle, there’s an enormous difference between being mayor of a small town — or even a medium sized city — ans vice president or president.
******Actually, I disagree. I think you can extrapolate from smaller to larger. He who is faithful in a little is faithful in a lot.
I think that one’s strengths and weaknesses are magnified as one moves to larger things, but if you can successfully govern a small thing, you will likely successfully govern a larger thing.
Report comment as offensive
I’d much rather have a Senator who’s served in the U.S. Senate than the mayor of a small town trying to run the country.
Good thing she’s no longer only the “mayor of a small town,” but now the governor of the state with the largest land mass of any of the other 50 — and the state with the largest energy potential of any other!
Report comment as offensive
Steveg - 26
YOU WRITE:… “I’d much rather have a Senator who’s served in the U.S. Senate than the mayor of a small town trying to run the country. Ideally I’d rather have someone who has been the governor of a large state, but none of those are running this time.”
You do think rather small, read Outkast’s post #30 your Library can be of assistance if you can’t GOOGLE the results.
THINK ENERGY
Report comment as offensive
Outkast - he hasn’t realized that she is the Governor, he’s still back on page 59 - never mind other important issues, it takes time to ‘catch up’ -
Report comment as offensive
I think that one’s strengths and weaknesses are magnified as one moves to larger things,
That’s a problem.
Until 19 months ago, these were Palin’s duties at pop. 6000 :
1. Preside at council meetings. The mayor may take part in the discussion of matters before the council, but may not vote, except that the mayor may vote in the case of a tie;
2. Act as ceremonial head of the city;
http://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Wasilla/Wasilla02/Wasilla0216.html#2.16
Report comment as offensive
1. Preside at council meetings. The mayor may take part in the discussion of matters before the council, but may not vote, except that the mayor may vote in the case of a tie;
2. Act as ceremonial head of the city;
******And, this is EXACTLY what the Vice-President does except in smaller proportion.
And, to top it off, she now has 18 months of additional executive experience.
Report comment as offensive
This is what I could find out about the Multi Use Sports Complex in Wasilla, Alaska that seems to be a point of contention and reason to not vote for McCain:
1. The citizens of that city desired a Community Center. There were not adequate facilities to support all the needs, particularly ice time for hockey.
2. In 1998 the citizens submitted a “nomination application” to the cities capital improvement plan to have a sports facility built somewhere in the city.
3. The city council, made up of several elected officials, and not part of Palins “cabinet”, chose a spot near their municipal airport as an ideal location. (Normally city councils are made up of elected officials representing their respective jurisdictions and usually containing members of both political parties)
4. “International developer” Gary Lundgren also desired the same area for an industrial park.
5. The land in question was owned by The Nature Conservancy in 1998 and both Lundgren and the City began negotiations to buy the land.
(Why TNC would want to sell land for any development or to any developer is beyond me, it goes against their mission statement)
6. Somehow Lundgren and TNC were able to come to an agreement first? My guess being that perhaps Lundgren was dealing directly with the TNC headquarters in Washington DC and Wasilla was dealing with the Alaskan branch office? Just a guess.
7. So on November 04, 1999 TNC signed a deed over to Lundgren for the land in question. The City of Wasilla claimed foul and immediately challenged the sale in court.
Theory since I wasn’t able to view the actual court documents:
If negotiations were going on simultaneously, perhaps a p/s agreement was held in hand by both Lundgren and Wasilla from TNC? Not sure why else the city could sue without some formal agreement in their possession.
Another interesting tidbit to all of this is that one day earlier, on November 03, 1999, TNC received a parcel of land in the same county from a Carl Mark Fritzler. I bring this up because it is not in TNC’s nature to sell land to developers unless they are getting something more in return. If someone can connect Fritzler to Lundgren, they may be on to something.
I’d also like to see the transfer forms to see what Lundgren paid for the property. Another unknown in my 2 hours of online research.
8. So parcel goes into courts to settle title dispute. In the interim, city continues on with plans for new complex. In 2002, while land is still under dispute and even being developed, city voters approve 1/2 pct. sales tax hike to pay for costs of the new complex.
The citizens also voted to approve a $14.7 million bond to fund construction. Not sure if this is one in the same vote or not.
9. Courts finally grant title to Lundgren who then offers to sell the land to the city for its market value (supposed to be around $2.4 million according to Lundgrens appraisers).
10. City opts for Eminent Domain taking option and thus starts an Eminent Domain battle that lingers in court until finally Wasilla City Council agrees to pay court ordered settlement price of $770,332 or $837,000 (varying sources) plus Lundgrens legal fees of $314,739 and interest of $362,000.
11. Even though court battles were still going on, development of the site had been going on since 2002. The complex opened March 06, 2004 and it is a beautiful site! See alaskarama.com/musc/
My take on all this is that once Lundgren found out the city was interested in developing a piece of TNC held property he ran to his contact(s) at the Washington DC office of TNC (Lundgren was from Virginia at the time) and worked out a deal to acquire the site while Wasilla city officials were negotiating with the local Alaskan TNC office. They probably both had an agreement in hand but the land was deeded to Lundgren thus bringing on the lawsuit.
You see this happen often with quick thinking real estate developers. They know a government entity wants some land so they swoop in and try to negotiate the land from the current owner, then become a middle man and make a nice profit on the deal. My guess is Lundgren got the land for the $125,000(+/-) said to be asking price to Wasilla from TNC and then hoped to sell it for much more or sell some and develop some, who knows.
Anyways, if someone on here has access to court files, take a look at the following:
1. U.S. District Court File 3AN-02-09223Ci (Civil)
2. U.S. District Court File 3AN-02-13590Ci (Civil)
3. Docket #A99-591 CV (JWS) (Forgot the court, but it is most likely Alaska Superior Court)
I’d love to get a better description of the facts. Relying on left wing media sites whose only purpose is to slander and distort isn’t reliable at all.
Anyways, everything I have posted is from public information available online. It may or may not all be correct, so please if there are missing facts or erroneous facts, fill in the blanks, thanks.
Report comment as offensive
When you think of how vicious, unjust and hateful the left was to Clarence Thomas . . .
This is a myth. Sen. Biden actually prevented the testimony of other witnesses regarding Thomas’ use of pornography and interactions with women. This testimony certainly would have stopped confirmation. In order to prevent an ugly failure of the confirmation, Biden didn’t even force testimony by others and by Thomas himself to illustrate his lack of judicial temperament, his inability to talk about legal issues professionally, and his kookie theories.
Thomas is a bizzaro character, switching religions, and camping in his RV in WalMart parking lots. His book party on C-Span was embarrassing, with him talking ostentatiously, and Justice Roberts painfully reticent in greeting him on camera. He couldn’t last as a working trial judge (my brother in law is one) or as an instructor in a top-100 law school (my uncle was the dean at one).
Report comment as offensive
Sccop, in post #10 you exclusively blame Sarah Palin for botching a land deal with a developer but then in post #33 you indicate her position is ceremonial at best.
Which is it? You act to much like Obama, change, as in ignore the facts and change to whatever sounds good for the moment?
Report comment as offensive
camping in his RV in WalMart parking lots.
*****Um, what’s wrong with this? We’ve done it many times. It is a cool service that WalMart offers, and it makes it way cheaper to travel across country when you can stop and spend the night without having to pay to do so.
Report comment as offensive
It’s official - Sarah Palin is going to put John McCain in the White House.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W5IAPK0hbU
Report comment as offensive
TRS at #29: Actually, I disagree. I think you can extrapolate from smaller to larger. He who is faithful in a little is faithful in a lot.
I think that one’s strengths and weaknesses are magnified as one moves to larger things, but if you can successfully govern a small thing, you will likely successfully govern a larger thing.
Sorry but it doesn’t work like that. That’s like saying that somebody who successfully ran a five-person small business is ready to become CEO of General Motors.
Scale matters. The problems encountered by a small town are nothing like those that come to the oval office or Congress. She gets a little added credit for being a governor, but she hasn’t done it long and even that’s been at a small scale.
Report comment as offensive
Outkast at #30: Good thing she’s no longer only the “mayor of a small town,” but now the governor of the state with the largest land mass of any of the other 50 — and the state with the largest energy potential of any other!
The land mass isn’t that important, the population is. Alaska’s population as of 2006 was 670,053 according to the U.S. Census bureau.
The entire state has fewer people than most larger cities. And she’s not been governor all that long.
Explain to me why Palin is a better choice than Kay Bailey Hutchinson? If McCain felt he needed a conservative woman, there was one who had those credentials plus a great deal more experience. Why did he pass her over?
Report comment as offensive
CHALZZ — Thanks for calibrating Palin’s culpability in the botched land deal. Other unidentified actors may share blame. It’s Alaska! (To be fair to me, I didn’t rule out mass guilt.)
So, here’s the next question. How does Sarah’s role in Wasilla’s money woes contribute to her merits as a reformer? She may not have been the sole cause of the fiscal fiasco, but couldn’t she have done something to prevent and repair — ceremonially, of course, if nothing else?
Report comment as offensive
STEVEG: The population of Alaska is smaller than that of 73 metropolitan statistical areas.
Alaska is a corrupt subsidiary of oil, a Republican welfare state. Nothing goes on in Alaska besides pumping and precipitation.
America’s problems are bigger than the personal corruption of some elected officials. We have a lot going on, and none of it happens in Alaska.
Report comment as offensive
Looking down your liberal nose again, are you Scroopy?
Where’s Stevie coming to defend you?
Report comment as offensive
Nothing goes on in Alaska besides pumping and precipitation.
We need more states, IMO, where very little goes on besides pumping (domestic oil) and precipitation (to reverse the droughts).
Report comment as offensive
Steve G,
Maybe the fact that no one but you is mentioning Kay Bailey Hutchinson? I just put a list of 18 reasons why I think Palin is an excellent choice on the main thread about Palin; let’s see if I still have it on my clipboard and can copy it here:
This is a quick, no-particular-order list of why I think Palin is an outstanding choice:
1. She’s extremely pro-life. Not only is that excellent in itself, but it will get McCain’s base to vote for him.
2. She was completely unexpected to all but a small group of conservatives, which gives McCain a great advantage in news stories (and stole Obama’s thunder coming off his long-awaited near coronation the night before).
3. She’s from Alaska, and yet favors drilling for oil in her home state–it should finally actually happen, and none too soon.
4. She brings the kind of diversity to the ticket that will counter Obama’s only real claim to fame–that he’s black. In Palin, we have a woman, an Alaskan, a wife of a part-native, a mother of a special-needs child. That’s an extraordinary amount of diversity in one family.
5. She will bring in a lot of undecideds and some women who were enthusiastic about voting for Hillary but not that enthusiastic about voting for Obama.
6. She helps get rid of the “old and stodgy” feeling McCain has had. Furthermore, in choosing a running mate who complements him wonderfully but doesn’t particularly “shore up his weaknesses,” McCain emphasizes that he is experienced and his opponent is not, and that he didn’t really need to choose a running mate with foreign policy experience or whatever.
7. The left keeps sputtering “she’s inexperienced,” which will only draw the more attention to the lack of experience of their own presidential pick.
8. She’s the only one of the presidential / VP nominees who has executive experience. A legislative / executive matching is much smarter than two legislators.
9. She is a fiscal conservative. In this economy, that will appeal to more than the Republicans.
10. She is loved by her constituents.
11. Being a mother of a Down syndrome baby will do wonders for the pro-life cause. (I’ve seen ranges of 70-90% in the number of Down’s babies aborted. Yet Down’s children are the most loving, lovable people you’ll ever meet.)
12. It will be hard for feminists to attack her credibly, though I imagine they’ll try. (Their support for Clinton after Lewinsky proved that anything is possible if abortion is at stake.)
13. She is, by all accounts, very good at what she does.
14. A young, pretty, and sweet–but very accomplished–woman in that position has probably completely killed any chances Hillary ever had of trying again. She won’t be the girl wonder anymore AND she’ll look old and bitter by comparison.
15. She has the kind of integrity we need.
16. She has the kind of no-nonsense posture that will force McCain to keep his promises to his base if he isn’t so inclined.
17. Obama has an awful lot of negatives (inexperience, the wrong church for twenty years, appallingly liberal, the wrong associates, etc.) and an awful lot of people wanted to vote against him, but didn’t necessarily want to vote for McCain. Many such people would probably have stayed home or voted third party. Now people can vote FOR McCain–not just because we like her, but because he has shown that in a pinch his judgment is better (at least sometimes) than we’d been thinking it was. Call that the “relief” factor, but it’s significant.
18. Many evangelical leaders (including James Dobson, but not limited to him) had been sitting on the sidelines wondering what to do in this election. They didn’t want Obama but couldn’t endorse McCain. Now they’re stepping forward. In effect, McCain’s campaign has finally just begun. And by the way, since they were neck and neck already, that means he should now pull ahead, not that he has too late a start to catch up.
Well, I was trying for a list of 10 and went over, and I can’t think of two more to make it to 20.
I really do think McCain probably won the election yesterday with this choice–he finally energized his base, but did so with a person who will pick up a lot of undecided votes as well. Usually the VP choice doesn’t matter a lot, but in this case it was absolutely critical and would determine whether he won or lost this election. With any of the other people named last week (with the possible exception of Pawlenty, whom I don’t know), I think he would have sealed a loss. With this choice, he probably sealed a victory.
Report comment as offensive
CHERYLD, No doubt McCain energized evangelicals. But that still doesn’t provide the ground game he needs in Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, and Colorado, where McCain is reported to have next to no ground game.
Report comment as offensive
______________________________________________________As Michael Reagan puts it:
______________________________________________________