Dobson vs Armey, Round 2

I'm enjoying this fight quite a bit. Dick Armey has written an open letter where he slams James Dobson as a man who cares more about keeping the money flowing to his organizations than in actually accomplishing anything (gee, that would be a shock) and Dobson replies with a column on Fox News' website. Dobson misrepresents Armey's position rather badly, claiming that Armey is accusing him of being for things he's against:

Nevertheless, he has implied that I am among those who favor a government monopoly of schools, government-funded "art," taxpayer supported "family planning" organizations, taxpayer support for churches and nanny-state activism. Where has this man been? I have fought all of those policies tooth and nail, notably while in his presence.

But Armey says no such thing. Here is his full mention of those issues:

There was a day when social conservatives were united with economic conservatives in the belief that small, limited government was not only good for our economy and the prosperity of American families, but essential to protect traditional family values. We all fought for a limited federal government -- a government that had the decency to respect the American people by staying out of their lives. Small government meant that all Christians could practice their faith as they saw fit. Big government violates those rights by meddling in our lives, misusing our hard-earned money, and dictating cultural norms to us. We were and are rightly outraged when government imposes wrong-headed values through its monopoly of schools, government-funded "art," and taxpayer funded "family planning."

He only mentions those things as issues that unite social and economic conservatives. Nowhere does he imply that Dobson is for those things. Dobson is clearly misrepresenting what Armey said.

More like this

Tis the season to be generous, to count our blessing and and remember the more needy. In that spirit, it's worth noting that conservatives are more generous than us liberals. According to a new book by Arthur Brooks, a behavioral economist at Syracuse, people on the right side of the political…
Having just returned from the Tea Bugger/Palin rally on the Boston Common (abridged version: It's just the same shitheads that have been making the rest of us miserable for the last thirty years, only with a new name), I came across this superb post by Lance Mannion (italics original, boldface…
By David Michaels Marla Cone, in the Los Angeles Times, reports on a complaint raised by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) that the National Toxicology Programâs Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) is being run not by federal scientists but by a consulting firm that…
At least Bush didn't tell the whole city to go screw itself, just the kids (from here) ScienceBlogling Mike Dunford describes why a family making $83,000 per year needs S-CHIP despite Little Lord Pontchartrain's claims to the contrary: After all of that [basic living expenses], the family of four…

How many of Dobson's sheeple will actually look up Armey's letter and judge for themselves rather than relying on Dobson's words, which will probably end up flowing through the channels of the Focus on the Family media machine?

Sad.

I can only pray that Focus on the Phallus is one of the BIGGEST losers this election season.

Don't know if you've heard Dobson's shows lately. Seems like he's in a panic over the coming elections. Last week, he was going on and on about how critical these elections are and practically commanding the "values voters" to get to the polls. Today, he was preaching The Fear of God and how we're nearing the complete collapse of the U.S. (unless, of course, we vote "godly" people into office).

Ooh, Ooh, Ohh!
Ed you need to cover the Ted Haggard (head of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)) gay tryst story. Dobson is getting in on it: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=75600

'Course he is against publicising this. Curious how his stance would be on publicising the allegation if it were a democrat or liberal figure involved.

Last week, he was going on and on about how critical these elections are and practically commanding the "values voters" to get to the polls.

Yeah, but the cat's out of the bag on how the fundamentalists were just being pandered for their votes (surprise!). So good luck with that one Mr. Dobson.

"a government that had the decency to respect the American people by staying out of their lives"

I know I'm not a conservative now. Have you met your fellow Americans? Collectively, we haven't earned the respect needed to keep the government out of our lives. At least not as much as some people would like. Imagine what the fundies would be like if there wasn't an outside authority saying "No, you can't do that." Yuck.

Sharon-

I've just seen one snippet about that, but so far I've not seen any evidence other than one person's story. That's why I haven't said anything about it.

Hmmm, I read both letters and came away with a different take. Dobson focused on each and every point that Armey made and basically called Armey a liar. I don't know the history of either man very well, but "Armey is a liar and smear artist" would seem to be a bigger story than "Dobson misrepresented some of Armey's points". Unless you have information backing up Armey's claims, at which point "Dobson is a liar" would lead, or you just wanted to make Dobson look bad.

Ed:
How's this?
http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1326038
The C-Springs and Denver papers are all over this (Gazette-Telegraph, Rocky Mtn News, Denver Post, etc.) as is NBC Nightly News.

Regardless of the one man's story, he has resigned as pres of the NAE, and it is a story. I understand your caution, though, some blogs have been burned by the rampant Plame-gate speculation (Fitz-mas, anyone?).