Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In a change of position that could only surprise the astonishingly naive (i.e. his own followers), James Dobson now says he might endorse John McCain for president.
Conservative Christian leader James Dobson has softened his stance against Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, saying he could reverse his position and endorse the Arizona senator despite serious misgivings."I never thought I would hear myself saying this," Dobson said in a radio broadcast to air Monday. "... While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might."
Dobson and other evangelical leaders unimpressed by McCain increasingly are taking a lesser-of-two-evils approach to the 2008 race.
Anyone who believes that he really didn't think he would ever hear himself saying that is breathtakingly clueless. James Dobson isn't stupid. Saying a few months ago that he couldn't endorse McCain was nothing more than a move to gain leverage. John McCain needs the religious right leaders to give him the okay in order to win in November and Dobson damn well knows it. So by withholding initial support, he gained leverage with which to extract promises from McCain.
What promises? As I've been telling people for months, there is only one thing they really and truly want and know that they can get if they can keep Obama out of the White House: the Supreme Court. I guarantee you they have already cut a deal with McCain that says we'll urge our followers to vote for you as the lesser of two evils if you choose nominees for the high court from our short list.
There was never any doubt that this was going to happen. Did anyone really believe that Dobson was going to sit out the campaign and lose all his ability to influence the outcome? Did anyone really believe that he was going to tell his followers not to support McCain or to vote third party, thereby assuring Obama's election? Not a chance. Dobson may be a lunatic, but he's a shrewd lunatic.
Politics
Comments
At least his influence is overstated. I read somewhere that this massive evangelical movement is only massive because of creative census reading, and an intensive networking plan that sends out mailers into the pews, where no one reads them, if there's anyone there.
That being said, there are still a lot of evangelicals.
Posted by: matt | July 22, 2008 10:18 AM
BREAKING NEWS: Religious Right Figure Endorses Republican.... Bears Shit in Woods.... Pope is Catholic....
Posted by: Wes | July 22, 2008 10:41 AM
In further news, Old Nick endorses Dobson as "My kind of guy".
Posted by: J-Dog | July 22, 2008 10:47 AM
No matter how many times you kick a dog, it will come back, tail between its legs. The "Agents of intolerance" can't face the possibility of a Supreme Court that won't decide every case by asking WWJD.
Posted by: BaldApe | July 22, 2008 11:09 AM
Machiavelli would be proud.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 22, 2008 11:22 AM
>Supreme Court that won't decide every case by asking WWJD.
I don't want a supreme court that decides on the criteria. But I have a feeling if the Christian right got one, it wouldn't be too happy with the results either.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 22, 2008 11:28 AM
James Dobson, as I was, was very reluctant to endorse Senator McCain. Since the Supreme Court will be important, Christian Conservatives have no choice but to support McCain. Liberals have been using the courts to promote policies that are detrimental to our country, such as abortion, "gay marriage". A conservative court will stop this onslaught on our Christian values and culture.
Posted by: SteveP | July 22, 2008 11:29 AM
Yeah, SteveP, that gay marriage really is an "onslaught", alright. How dare those gays think they should have the same rights as other people? America wasn't founded with rights and freedoms in mind. It was founded as a Christian Theocracy, of course. And people who don't fit the Christian mold should not have the same rights.
Posted by: Wes | July 22, 2008 11:34 AM
I'm not a Dobson supporter, but in all fairness, I can understand where he's coming from. From his point of view he has to go with what he sees as the lesser evil. Don't tell me that there aren't people on the left doing the same.
Posted by: Bill in NC | July 22, 2008 11:52 AM
@stevep
Both Liberals and Conservatives "use" the courts to there advantage. The problem with "Christian Conservative" line of thinking is that there are a thousands of other problems in this country that impact you and your family more than "gay" marriage ever will.
Posted by: yoshi | July 22, 2008 11:56 AM
SteveP, you claim that gay marriage is detrimental to our country. In what manner is it detrimental to our country? How can two men or two women wishing to declare each other next-of-kin (with all the accompanying legal rights and responsibilities) harm you or me?
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | July 22, 2008 11:56 AM
So much for adhering to your sacredly held principles...
Back in Feb. Dobson said he would sit out the election if McCain was the nominee. "I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative and, in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are," Dobson said in a statement read on Laura Ingraham's nationally syndicated radio show. "He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55665
As always, politicians are whores, that's nothing new, now the religious 'right' is exposed as having the same principles.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 22, 2008 12:01 PM
How much influence do you think Dobson really still has? I can't really tell, but it seems like the less partisan types like Rick Warren have a lot more following these days. Perhaps I am being optimistic.
Posted by: Skepoet | July 22, 2008 12:07 PM
I see SteveP has learned nothing from last week regarding his propensity to make absolute statements without providing any supporting documentation; the whole extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence thingy, where his claims last week were swiftly and easily discredited by Ed and other commentors. In this thread we have SteveP making another absolute claim that gay marriage is detrimental to our country.
SteveP - what evidence do you possess that's missed this group of readers that gay marriage is absolutely detrimental to our country? Please refer us to some Paul Cameron "findings", that would be almost as enjoyable fisking as your David Barton propaganda on America's founding.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 22, 2008 12:15 PM
On the topic of the Supreme Court--
If any more conservatives are nominated, Roe v. Wade could be in critical danger. However, it seems to me that the overturning of Roe could be one of the most damaging outcomes possible for the Republican party. The religious right has long been attracted to the GOP due to the latter's (empty) anti-abortion rhetoric. Supposing that one of the most cherished wet dreams of the RR comes true (i.e. women are deprived of their reproductive freedom), then the Republican party machine will have lost one of its most powerful hooks among its most faithful base. It doesn't sound like a judicious move on the part of Republicans to seriously endanger Roe.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 22, 2008 12:19 PM
So televangelist preachers are really politicians, right?
On abortion, I don't think a Supreme Court victory will completely outlaw abortions. As I understand it, it may very well return the issue to the states. In any event, the battle will certainly not be over, as it wasn't over after Roe v Wade.
Posted by: BaldApe | July 22, 2008 12:36 PM
Is it an "onslaught" to Hindu values and culture to allow the consumption of beef in the U.S.? Is it an assault on orthodox Judaism to allow people to work or even drive on Saturday?
Get it through your head: you are not being harmed in any way just because someone holds different values and practices a different culture from yours. Legal abortion and homosexual marriage threaten neither you, nor your values, nor your culture. You have never had the right to dictate that other people follow your religion.
Posted by: DaveL | July 22, 2008 12:48 PM
What? The Constitution Party isn't running anyone this year?
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | July 22, 2008 12:48 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | July 22, 2008 12:49 PM
I'm starting to think this whole open democracy thing is a bad idea. The skills required to win an election are diametrically opposed to the skills required to be a good leader Party politics, pandering, fund raising, special interests, and myriad other factors conspire to rob us of effective leadership. Plus, most who are wise enough to be the kind of leader we need are also wise enough to never enter politics.
What if, for the Presidency and Congressional seats, we did away with the current voluntary candidate process and replaced it with a lottery system? It seems to be working pretty well for juries. Use the lottery to select a candidate pool of say 12 people for each office. Their identities are kept secret from the general population and initially revealed only to an Electoral College type body. Overseen by the Judiciary, the Electoral College would then voir dire the candidates over the next few months an narrow the choices to 3 or 4.
Certain questions would be out of bounds, like anything meant to directly reveal the race, gender, or religion of the candidate, similar to the anti-descrimination laws regarding hiring. The questions and answers would be transcribed and made available to the public. The intention here being for the general population to form their first opinion based on the candidate's positions on issues and general philosophy. People, would then have a couple months to debate the relative merits of the responses.
One or two months before the election the candidates are revealed and matched with their statements from the voir dire process. A series of public debates are then held allowing people to see how the candidates conduct themselves. Some campaigning could also be allowed at this time, paid for by the government.
I'm torn as to whether incumbents should also be included in the candidate pool or if everyone has a one-term limit. If they are allowed, then they should be included in final debates.
Then we have the election with the winner is selected by popular vote. This system would eliminate or greatly marginalize the negative factors in our current election process. When I look at the politicians who have been running the country in my lifetime, it hardly seems that we could do any worse.
In case you haven't guessed, I'm just taking a piss with this idea. But if anyone would like to take it seriously and debate for or against it, it might be fun.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 22, 2008 12:54 PM
My feeling is--let Dobson endorse McCain. In fact, the more religious right leaders come out for him, and the louder they give their support, the better. It may motivate some of these fence-sitting, sore-loser Democrats to get with the game. At the very least, the prospect of a solidly rr conservative Supreme Court ought to scare the crap out of anyone with a functioning brain who believes in the Constitution and secularism in government.
Posted by: gary l. day | July 22, 2008 1:23 PM
Dobson ambitions are restricted to one thing, just like Limbaugh's: "How can I bring in more bucks?" In Limbaugh's case is just drawing enough viewers/listeners to justify the ad rates and ad buys to give him a good income. In Dobson's case it's generating enough listeners for his radio shows to get sell them to stations and to get poor little old ladies to send in five dollars at a time for his Focus on Family. Both are con men looking to make a buck. Drawing out an endorsement for McCain only makes sense. But both men suffer from the illusion that they have real political power. They don't. They just think they do.
Posted by: Keanus | July 22, 2008 2:05 PM
Dobson changes direction. The immutability of Dobson's message becomes mutable. MESSAGE: God can't be trusted; he needs help.
Dobson whores out access to his fanatic followers for political favors. MESSAGE: Jesus is for sale, only thirty bucks.
Dobson has elevated himself to the status of God, if he ever believed in God in the first place. Make way for the new atheist!
Posted by: Farb | July 22, 2008 2:58 PM
Re: Farb.
Of course Dobson believes in himself. His picture is all over the Focus Headquarters. He can hear the praise all day, as he walks the halls. People come from all over the country, nay, world to behold his grandeur.
He has no delusions that his god exists.
Posted by: SharonB | July 22, 2008 3:32 PM
Abby Normal - I had the same idea in reverse. Break the country up into small groups - say 1000 people - who live near each other. Each group elects one of their number to represent them. Then choose those who actually serve by lot from the ones elected. In a group that small everyone should be able to get to know who the "best" people are, and the chance involved in the drawing would make it useless for someone to try and get elected for personal gain.
Posted by: Taz | July 22, 2008 3:43 PM
It has never seemed right to me to insult a politician by calling him a whore. It's drastically more insulting, I think, to call a whore a politician.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 22, 2008 4:00 PM
Unless you're talking about Elyssa Young, Mary Carey, Melody "Mimi Miyagi" Damayo, or a handful of others, in which case you're just being accurate.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 22, 2008 4:23 PM
Awesome. I really wish I could vote for Elyssa Young.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 22, 2008 4:42 PM
Dobson and other evangelical leaders unimpressed by McCain increasingly are taking a lesser-of-two-evils approach to the 2008 race.
Such pansies.
Posted by: bullet | July 22, 2008 5:11 PM
I would posit that it is largely the fault of Limbaugh and Dobson influencing their sheepish followers that we are currently living in the right-wing borderline dystopia that we are. Neither man is a bona fide politician, that's true. But you'd better believe that they have power.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 22, 2008 5:24 PM
I have to favor abby normal's scenario over Taz's just because Taz's version seems to elevate local politics to a national level.
I must admit that my views are colored by a bitter and extremely nasty recall election in which we lost our mayor and a city councilperson two years ago.
Posted by: twincats | July 22, 2008 5:53 PM
BaldApe: asking WWJD...and probably getting it wrong.
Seems to me most of the people who ask WWJD are mostly asking for rationalization to do what they're going to do anyway.
Posted by: MMOToole | July 22, 2008 8:09 PM
Regarding the idea that Roe V. Wade is endangered. NOT A CHANCE!!! It's a concept that would spell disaster for the Repugs.
One of the major problems with the Democrats in the last few (several, many?) years has been that most of their "hot issue" goals have been achieved. Racial/ethnic/sexual equality, Secial Securiy/Welfare, etc. are no longer the impossible dreams they once were. Therefore, many voters no longer see how their needs are specifically being addressed by the Democrats.
The Republicans are not all right-wing fundies. Many republicans I know tolerate the fundies for their voting bloc, but don't really believe the extremist will ever have a controling power in the party.
But...
Should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned, voters would rise up in arms. The Democrats would have an issue that would motivate women (50% of the voters!!!), as well as anyone with ANY concern over personal liberty. And many Republicans would would switch to Democrat because of a single issue.
As much as I think both parties are being run by idiots these days, I don't think even the blockheads running the Repugs are stupid enough to follow through.
(While it's a nice dream to see the party of Jessie Helms vanish into the night, it's not worth the cost.)
Posted by: Jrob | July 22, 2008 9:30 PM
The reluctance of Dobson and other religious right leaders to endorse McCain is bad news for the Republicans. The Republicans recent electoral successes have been driven by their ability to energize their social conservative base. Half-hearted endorsements wont cut it. If enough religious voters stay home on election day then it is all the more likely that Obama will win.
Posted by: Cheddar | July 23, 2008 2:39 AM
I join many of the above commenters:
The moment Dobson first said he wouldn't endorse McCain ever, back during the primaries, I *knew* he would end up endorsing the eventual Republican candidate no matter who that might be - on the grounds that even if he disagrees with the Republican candidate, he would still perfer them to the Democrat.
I also think there is something in the supreme court conspiricy claim. Social conservatives have hated the supreme court for decades, because it has stoped them from banning abortion, using government funds and resources to promote Christianity or jailing homosexuals. They had to make up the 'activist judge' line as a means by which they can attack the court without seeming unpartiotic. Dobson is perhaps celebrating as his greatest single goal approaches: Fill the supreme court with socially conservative pro-life judges, and start overturning all those 'activist' decisions that, in his view, have resulted in murdering babies, persecuting Christians for their faith, and endorsing dangerous and evil perverted sins respectively.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | July 23, 2008 4:42 AM
Obama is already waffling on the war.
Corporate interest will be served no matter who wins.
Nothing will change.
Posted by: Skeptical Student | July 23, 2008 5:28 AM
"Nothing will change."
That is what people said in 2000. Wake up, Skeptical Student. Do you honestly believe it doesn't matter who names the next couple of Supreme Court justices?
Posted by: Rob Ryan | July 23, 2008 9:14 AM
That's always been my impression. Sorry if it looked otherwise. My reaction has always been "How the frak would you know what Jesus would do?"
I have a bumper sticker that says "What would Scooby Doo?" Let 'em scratch their heads and wonder.
Posted by: BaldApe | July 23, 2008 9:18 AM
You Obama supporters are sucking down the Kool-Aid by the gallon. It is pathetic. His ridiculous "Global Anti-Poverty Act" is hitting the Senate floor today. I would love to know how we are going to afford to pay .7% of our GDP ($845 billion) to fight poverty abroad. Lefties are the biggest fools. We can't even solve poverty at home, we're already bankrupting ourselves due to unending wars and nearly bankrupt entitlement programs, and this nut (or "messiah" to many Democrats) Obama comes along and pushes a bill that is going to cost us .7% of our GDP. On top of that, he wants universal healthcare. How are we possibly going to pay for all this? The Dems in Congress have done nothing to solve the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare. Yet the Kool-Aid drinking left doesn't even give this a second thought. I can't believe we keep electing the same thieves - Democrats AND Republicans - over and over again into Congress and the White House. Folks, use your heads. We cannot afford the garbage Obama is pushing. We are bankrupt as it is. All the rising prices for everything can be directly traced to endless deficit spending and Obama plans to heap on even more spending. Unbelievable.
Posted by: mroberts | July 25, 2008 9:36 AM