Dobson and Mohler Oppose Obama Candidacy

I wrote yesterday about Dr. Dobson’s announcement on his radio program that he may in fact support Senator John McCain’s candidacy after all. Dr. Albert Mohler appears on the program with Dr. Dobson, and both men vociferously oppose the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama. They agree that Obama is one of the most liberal candidates ever to run. The broadcast is now available online, and you should listen to it.

[audio:http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/c4daily/c4daily20080721.mp3]

“Dr. Dobson Says He ‘Might’ Endorse Sen. McCain” – CitizenLink.com

(HT: albertmohler.com)

48 Responses to Dobson and Mohler Oppose Obama Candidacy

  1. Truth Unites... and Divides July 22, 2008 at 8:12 am #

    both men vociferously oppose the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama. They agree that Obama is one of the most liberal candidates ever to run.

    Praise God for the courage of James Dobson and Albert Mohler to speak the truth in love.

  2. Paul July 22, 2008 at 9:17 am #

    “they agree that Obama is one of the most liberal candidates ever to run.”

    you can judge the intelligence of men in political matters by how much they throw around the word “liberal” as some sort of insult.

  3. volfan007 July 22, 2008 at 10:00 am #

    Obama is the most liberal man to ever run for the office of Presidency. Let’s just hope and pray that he will not be put into office. Our country has enough troubles now. We dont need more.

    David

  4. Daniel Davis July 22, 2008 at 10:37 am #

    i happen to judge mohler and dobson as pretty astute in labeling obama “liberal.” would he not call himself a liberal?

    i don’t get the sense they are using it as an insult, but a label that applies to obama and his political policies, and is understood in that context by the vast majority of americans.

  5. John July 22, 2008 at 10:49 am #

    Agree 100% Paul, and it’s not just in political matters, but in theological ones also. It shows nothing further than immaturity and pedantic behavior (“he’s just a liberal” “he’s one of the most liberal I’ve ever seen” “the guy’s so liberal his moral compass doesn’t work” etc). Give me a break.

    Mohler, as well as Dobson, needs to just shut up. He is becoming more political, and it is a shame. He and Dobson are about the last two people I would listen two on these issues.

  6. Darius July 22, 2008 at 11:03 am #

    John and Paul, do you even know what “liberal” means? When you call me a conservative (or “conservative”), I don’t view it as an insult. Why are you guys so touchy about being liberals?

    Calling someone a liberal means that you can explain their policies and worldview in a word rather than individually explain each one of them. Calling a KKK member a Nazi isn’t “immature” or “pedantic,” but calling merely a spade a spade and lets the hearer know where the KKK member stands on politics.

    It’s funny how liberals are so touchy about titles and run away from them like the plague. Even funnier, they project that touchiness onto others, like American Indians and blacks, claiming that it is an insult to call them anything but Native Americans and African Americans, respectively.

  7. Paul July 22, 2008 at 11:33 am #

    Darius,

    you couldn’t be farther off the mark here.

    I have no problem with you calling me a political liberal. Because I am one. That’s fine.

    The difference is context. When you call me a liberal, you are indeed calling a spade a spade. Fair enough. But look at the crowd that Dobson or Mohler is talking to. These people wrongly see anyone who isn’t just like them as at best different and at worst a traitor.

    See, if you tell me someone is conservative, I’ll look into their views and their voting records, and find out if they’re really conservative or not. If they’re neo-cons (read: “conservative”), then I’m going to laugh at them and think the worst of their political views. But, if they’re like Ron Paul or Bob Barr or George Will, I’m gonna give them all the respect in the world.

    The same is not the case for the those who throw around the word “liberal.” Republicans toss the word around like a slur. Both you and I know it, too (see: Tom DeLay, for an example).

    Now, insofar as your last paragraph, I have often stated to the overly PC crowd that if they’re going to refer to people as African Americans, then I want them to call me (Algerian ancestry) and Dave Matthews (South African) African Americans, too. Anything else is intellectually dishonest. 9 times out of 10, those people go back to using “black” pretty quickly.

    Insofar as Indians/Native Americans go, though, that’s the term that THEY use more often than not that I’ve seen, so I’ll use what THEY want me to use when referring to them. That’s only fair.

  8. Truth Unites... and Divides July 22, 2008 at 11:53 am #

    John: “Mohler, as well as Dobson, needs to just shut up. He is becoming more political, and it is a shame. He and Dobson are about the last two people I would listen two on these issues.”

    To each their own.

    I, on the other hand, do not care for the political opinions of pastors Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Vicki Gene Robinson, et al.

  9. John July 22, 2008 at 1:20 pm #

    Good for you TUAD, I don’t care for the political opinions of any of the people you listed either. In fact, I think all ministers should keep their political opinions to themselves, no matter which party they vote for. Do you not agree?

  10. Scott July 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm #

    It takes no courage whatsoever to say you “might support” a candidate. The American evangelical church is tightly bound to the Republican party and its ideals. I fail to see how Dobson and Mohler are doing anything but playing to their respective party lines (both politically, and sadly, within the church).

  11. Paul July 22, 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    And, Scott, let’s keep in mind something even more important to the both of them:

    R-A-T-I-N-G-S

    Dobson would be correct and not a hypocrite by supporting Bob Barr. But that doesn’t get the “conservatives” calling in and listening.

    About facing on McCain does.

  12. Scott July 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm #

    Within theological circles (i.e. the scholastic community), evangelicals commonly use the term “liberal” in a derogatory manner with little to no clarification of its parameters or its meaning. More often than not it’s simply an insider’s term to denote the “misguided others.” Sadly, there’s little to no thought given as to what makes one a liberal or a conservative.

  13. Darius July 22, 2008 at 1:49 pm #

    Wow, Paul and Scott and John, you really know what these guys are thinking… typical of liberals, judging inner thoughts and motives like they’re facts.

  14. Daniel Davis July 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm #

    so, potential support of mccain by mohler and dobson is based on a worldly concern for ratings??

    they couldn’t have a principled reason for doing so that involves conscience and pragmatism, could they?

  15. John July 22, 2008 at 1:56 pm #

    Darius,

    You’re proving our points for us bro. You make a huge generalization and then spew out the term “liberal” in a derogatory manner like we have discussed. Do you really not agree that many conservatives (politically and theologically) just throw the term around flippantly in an effort to discredit those whom they disagree with?

  16. Darius July 22, 2008 at 1:56 pm #

    No, Daniel, that couldn’t possibly be the reason. The best part of this thread: liberals showing us why one doesn’t need to give much explanation to the term liberal when they don’t bother to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt. Classic.

  17. Darius July 22, 2008 at 1:57 pm #

    Sure, some do, but the question was if Denny or Dobson or Mohler did in this case. Paul and you implied that one cannot call another a liberal because it is stupid and thoughtless to do so, which it is not.

  18. Scott July 22, 2008 at 2:03 pm #

    Darius,

    You’re not giving me the benefit of the doubt either! Read my post carefully. I said, “I fail to see..” I did not judge his thoughts or inner motives. You judged mine.

    Daniel (#14)… I do no doubt that Dobson and Mohler are motivated by pragmatism and conscience. I certainly hope so, for their sake and for the sake of those they lead. That being said, when you publicly announce your positions as they have you elevate yourself to a higher standard of judgment. When you flip-flop, that standard is only exacerbated. Hence, motives can, and often do, get questioned. That’s particularly the case when two evangelical leaders take political stands and/or make political endorsements. This is no different for Wright, Jackson, or Wallis.

  19. Paul July 22, 2008 at 2:10 pm #

    Darius,

    I said that certain people throw around the word liberal like it’s an insult. And they do.

    And I’ve HEARD Dobson do it. So, it’s not like this goes against typecast here.

    Insofar as judging one’s motives, I only base that on what I see. I can’t speak for Mohler, really, at all, but Dobson seems far more bent on being a star of the Republican movement than on being a good man of God.

    (not to defend McCain, but as I’ve stated before, twisting McCain’s votes and motives for them is not at all Godly, and you know it)

    Daniel,

    do they have pragmatic reasons for not voting for Obama, or for suddenly turning an about face and supporting McCain?

    I am certain that they do.

    But then, let’s hear THOSE REASONS, and not just a blanket, “duh, because, he’s, huh-huh, a liberal!”

  20. John July 22, 2008 at 2:13 pm #

    First off, I never said that calling somebody a liberal is stupid and thoughtless. I sometimes use the term and would never agree with your statement. What I have noticed is the conservative tendency to call people “liberal” when they disagree with them as an attempt to discredit them and make their own views look stronger. They use the word without any thought behind it. More than that, they never have any discussion of the term “liberal” and seldom explain just why they’re liberal (other than the fact that they disagree with them). In this sense, it is thoughtless and pedantic. Did Denny, Dobson or Mohler use the term in this case? Well, it definitely furthered their agenda, but I do agree that Obama may be a little more radical than other candidates in the past. I do admire Dr. Mohler for at least saying many positive things about Obama, something that could never be said for Denny. It is the personal attacks and constant negative portrayals that bother me so bad. Denny’s constant negative posts about him add to his extreme bias for right-wing politics and in my opinion involve no fair interaction. When is the last time you heard Denny say something positive about him? He has an agenda to constantly tear him down, and I’m not too sure that this is very Christian. While I’m not a big McCain fan, there are some things about him that I like, and if I had a blog, I wouldn’t be afraid to write about those.

    So why does “liberal” have such a negative connotation in some circles? By definition, conservatives like to keep things the way they always have been. They are afraid of change in a sense. What’s wrong with thinking out of the box and trying to do and view things differently? I don’t mind being called a liberal, it just bothers me when others throw the term around in a derogatory manner to discredit their opponents (which is basically an ad hominem argument, which is certainly thoughtless and stupid).

  21. Darius July 22, 2008 at 2:21 pm #

    Dobson has routinely discussed Obama’s faults, so his audience knows what he is talking about when he calls Obama a liberal. He doesn’t have to rehash his arguments every single time so that the slow pokes can keep up.

    John, what nice things should Denny say about Obama? This isn’t a popularity contest where we judge a person on his personality or character. We judge the guy on his positions, and Denny rightly points out that his positions are bogus and wrong.

  22. Paul July 22, 2008 at 2:29 pm #

    Darius,

    I will back up John to a small extent here.

    Something I learned in music school: if you’re going to call someone out every time they do something wrong, then you’d better well give them kudos when they get something right.

    And Obama HAS gotten things right. He supported the Supreme Court’s decision on the DC gun ban. His father’s day speech was one for the ages, and one can only hope that he actually holds true to what he was saying with his own daughters. There have been other instances as well.

    Denny would indeed be the bigger man to go ahead and point these out.

  23. Scott July 22, 2008 at 2:31 pm #

    Other than his stance on abortion, I would like you to enumerate on which of Obama’s positions are “bogus and wrong.” If we’re stereo-typing on this board, then I think it’s safe to characterize your last post as an example of why we “liberals” are so easily angered by the conservative right (I assume this label does not bother you!) Simply saying someone is wrong and bogus sounds elemental at best, ignorant at worst. If you can honestly engage the issues then feel free to disagree vigorously. I for one do not want to see a president so grossly abuse his executive powers. Additionally I would prefer the next president not to choose a war-mongering VP.

  24. David Hamilton July 22, 2008 at 2:35 pm #

    Dr. Burk,
    way to once again be a sword, sir (in the Matthew 10:34 kind of way).
    you sure know how to bring out the yutzes!
    You’re quite a tummler, and rarely does a post of yours go without stirring up a tsuris!

  25. Darius July 22, 2008 at 2:47 pm #

    Hmm, yutzes sounds better than liberals. 🙂

    Paul, Obama flip-flopped on the gun ban… he was both against it and for it. He likely did so for political expediency.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/27/barackobama.usa

    Scott, nope, I’m not upset at all if you call me a conservative rightie (guilty as charged). Call me a neo-con if you will (though you should probably understand that technically, it doesn’t apply to almost anyone to whom you probably think it does).

    Okay, here are a few of Obama’s positions that are wrong (though they change every minute, so who knows, maybe I now agree with him on some of these).

    – abortion: Obama is for infanticide, I prefer to allow babies that right to breath.
    – welfare/social programs: Obama believes that FORCED wealth redistribution is the way to go, while I know that this is absurd and evil.
    – gun control: while Obama has backed off of his radical views, he has routinely voted against the 2nd Amendment. I happen to support the Constitution.
    – war on radical Islam: Obama wants to talk with our enemies and bomb our allies, while I think it should probably be the opposite.

  26. Scott July 22, 2008 at 3:00 pm #

    I think he’s spot-on regarding these issues!

    – gun control: while Obama has backed off of his radical views, he has routinely voted against the 2nd Amendment. I happen to support the Constitution.
    – war on radical Islam: Obama wants to talk with our enemies and bomb our allies, while I think it should probably be the opposite.

    What is it with evangelicals and gun-control? I find it disturbing that you think talking with one’s enemies is problematic.

    – welfare/social programs: Obama believes that FORCED wealth redistribution is the way to go, while I know that this is absurd and evil.

    You may dislike it, but I hardly think it’s evil. What is evil is hoarding one’s wealth without so much as blinking at the plight of the poor and oppressed.

    Regarding abortion…I agree completely. However, as we’ve discussed ad nauseum on this board, some of us are not single-issue voters (however much we all would like to pigeonhole the other side.)

  27. Paul July 22, 2008 at 3:13 pm #

    Darius,

    if we’re going to play that game, then Bush flip flopped on No Child Left Behind (not funding a program is essentially the same as being against it), federal marriage amendments, empire building, etc, etc, etc, and the Republican congress definitely pulled the biggest flip flop of all time on restrained spending.

    If you’re going to play the flip flop game, the liberal yutzes will win every time. So, don’t go there. Obama is now in favor of the Supreme Court’s decision on the DC gun ban. Deal with it.

    insofar as your talk about how bad Obama is, let’s look, shall we?

    a) abortion: we agree on this one.

    b) I haven’t seen Obama’s welfare/social spending plans, but your synopsis is parked at the corner of absurdity lane and Straw Man drive. We have the lowest tax rates of any nation in the civilized world, with those in the top tax bracket paying a disproportionately small amount of their income in taxes.

    c) gun control: Obama backed off of views that both you and I deem to be inappropriate. Therefore, let’s see what his next vote on the issue looks like before pointing fingers, shall we?

    d) war on radical islam: uhh, Darius, WE forced Pakistan to become our ally in the Afghan war. If they are harboring terrorists, we have every right to, well, bring the battle to the terrorists, right?

    Insofar as talking with our enemies, it worked with Libya, didn’t it?

  28. Darius July 22, 2008 at 3:20 pm #

    I’m not against talking with our enemies. But Obama said he would put no preconditions on such talks, which is absurd and shows what a inexperienced chump he is. Is it any wonder that the terrorists have said that they want him to win? Then Obama said he wanted to attack Pakistan to get the terrorists, so in other words, the genius would aid and abet our enemies while attacking our allies (even if they are weak allies). Brilliant foreign policy!

  29. Daniel Davis July 22, 2008 at 3:28 pm #

    going back a bit…

    scott, for clarification sake, i wouldn’t lump mohler into dobson’s “flip-flop.” i don’t think he made such a move, did he?

    i agree that the choice to make public endorsements for or against a political candidate is potentially problematic. you rightly call out the evangelical church as being tied to the republican party. i lament this in so far as the republican party is seen as the route for social change and the solution for bearing out the church’s mission in the US.

    that said, the republican party candidate (within our two party system) does more closely align to dobson and mohler’s evangelical principles (and mine) and constituency than the alternative. so, i don’t think they should be faulted for making their reasoned thoughts known for supporting or even endorsing mccain given that their alternative would be obama.

    personally, “endorsing” would be too strong for my tastes in most election scenarios (i’m cynical when it comes to politics because it seems to trump the mandate of the church). i’m all for evangelicals laying out the issues and biblical reasoning for coming to one side or the other on those issues.

  30. John July 22, 2008 at 4:48 pm #

    David,

    Denny is hardly being a “sword” (in a Matthew 10:34 kind of way). Is constantly posting on controversial topics while taking such a staunch dogmatic stance aligning with a particularly political party being a “sword”? I doubt it.

    For civil discussion and voices I listen to from the conservative evangelical side, I go to jesuscreed or reclaimingthemind. I think Denny just has an axe to grind sometimes, and this hardly pertains to Matthew 10:34.

  31. Truth Unites... and Divides July 22, 2008 at 5:29 pm #

    John: “I do admire Dr. Mohler for at least saying many positive things about Obama, something that could never be said for Denny. It is the personal attacks and constant negative portrayals that bother me so bad. Denny’s constant negative posts about him add to his extreme bias for right-wing politics and in my opinion involve no fair interaction. When is the last time you heard Denny say something positive about him? He has an agenda to constantly tear him down, and I’m not too sure that this is very Christian.”

    I beg to differ. I think Denny’s been very fair in his interaction. And if you’re going to accuse Denny of extreme bias for right-wing politics, then turn-about is fair play and it can be accurately said that you have an extreme bias for left-wing politics. A leftist agenda that I’m not too sure is very Christian.

  32. John July 22, 2008 at 5:34 pm #

    TUAD,

    I think you have selective reading or something. Did you even read what I wrote? I’m not too sure misrepresenting somebody is very Christian.

  33. Paul July 22, 2008 at 5:36 pm #

    “I beg to differ. I think Denny’s been very fair in his interaction.”

    really? Find me one single instance where Denny has said anything kind about ANY democrat. Also, find me any place where Denny has had anything bad to say about any Republican, save for Rudy Giuliani. He had to be pushed to say anything about the Mark Foley scandal, and at that, he still tried to pin it on the democrats.

    “And if you’re going to accuse Denny of extreme bias for right-wing politics, then turn-about is fair play and it can be accurately said that you have an extreme bias for left-wing politics. A leftist agenda that I’m not too sure is very Christian.”

    You can say that about me too. But I’ll also say that instantaneously equating left-wing politics with bad theology is straw man argument at its basest.

  34. John July 22, 2008 at 5:44 pm #

    Amen to that

  35. Matt Svoboda July 22, 2008 at 5:49 pm #

    Paul,

    Denny doesn’t have to say anything he doesn’t want to say. It is in fact his blog where he is free to write his opinion. If you want nice things said about liberals, which I use as an insult, then go to a liberals blog or start your own! I haven’t heard Obama say anything good about the Bush administration. And he doesn’t have to. So why is it that Denny has to say good things about liberals(insult)?

    Matt

  36. Matt Svoboda July 22, 2008 at 5:51 pm #

    I don’t care if it is a straw-man. Liberal Christians clearly have bad theology. If they had good theology then they wouldn’t have such poor views!

  37. Ferg July 22, 2008 at 5:56 pm #

    What is it with evangelicals and gun-control? I find it disturbing that you think talking with one’s enemies is problematic.

    Quote of this post for me.

    I’m so glad I’m not an American having to vote in this election.

    Republicans make me want to vote democrat and democrats make me want to vote republican!

  38. Paul July 22, 2008 at 6:05 pm #

    Matt (in #35),

    I don’t disagree!

    But then again, no one should be calling someone even handed who clearly isn’t.

    That’s all.

    And if you think someone is a bad person simply because they’re a liberal, I would suggest getting out more.

    That said, given the events of this week on my gigs front, you might be able to convince me…

  39. Truth Unites... and Divides July 22, 2008 at 6:07 pm #

    Liberal Christians clearly have bad theology. If they had good theology then they wouldn’t have such poor views!

    3 L-O-U-D cheers for Matt Svoboda!!!

  40. Ferg July 22, 2008 at 6:14 pm #

    I’m so glad we don’t have the terms you guys have over here in Ireland!
    A good stiff liberal drink while listening to my wife who happens to be a woman, teach me some wonderful things she’s learnt from scripture today would be nice :o)

  41. Paul July 22, 2008 at 6:16 pm #

    And Matt, in #36,

    are you saying that Christians with liberal theology have bad theology

    or

    are you saying that Christians with liberal political views have bad theology?

    If it’s #1, than to an extent, I will agree with you.

    However, if it’s #2, then your post is also, well, #2.

  42. RefBapRob July 22, 2008 at 6:25 pm #

    All,
    Unless McCain chooses Huckabee as VP , my vote goes to Bob Barr.

    From the Southern baptist Geneva
    Robert I Masters

  43. Scott July 22, 2008 at 7:28 pm #

    Paul,

    If it’s #2, which I think it is given the context, then there is absolutely no way you can interact with Matt S on this issue. Apparently conservatives have cornered the market on “good theology,” whatever that is. If it’s a stranglehold on dispensational, pre-tribulation literalism, then they can have it. In the same vein, I’ll take his intended insult as a compliment. I prefer to use my Spirit-informed intelligence to think progressively. If that makes one a “liberal” than so be it! I refuse to stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes, and sling insults like a kid in the sand-lot. I’m sorry, but that’s where I think the “conservatives” on this board have been/are heading.

  44. D.J. Williams July 23, 2008 at 7:46 am #

    Ferg said…
    “…my wife who happens to be a woman…”

    It’s always nice when those two things coincide. 🙂

  45. Darius July 23, 2008 at 7:48 am #

    I was thinking the same thing, DJ. I guess in Europe, you can’t take anything for granted these days.

  46. Ferg July 23, 2008 at 8:19 am #

    DJ, it is something I’m glad about!!!

    Come on now Darius, no need for behind the back the slur on Europe. I’m not a fan of Europe, I’m not a fan of ANY country, I’m a fan of the kingdom of Jesus, but still – there’s no need for a silly comment like that.

  47. Darius July 23, 2008 at 9:08 am #

    I was just joking around, no insult intended.

  48. Ferg July 23, 2008 at 9:47 am #

    Sorry Darius. I’m having a bad day at work so I truely apologise for taking it too sensitively!

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes