I'm sure you've read it in the headlines by now. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, came out yesterday on his show to vehemently oppose Barack Obama's positions on the role of ethics and religion in governance. There are many things I could say about this broadcast. Many, many, many. In addition to his excoriation of Obama, Dobson made sure to conclude the broadcast by reminding listeners that he does not support John McCain's bid for the White House either. For those who have forgotten, he says he's going to sit out this election and not vote. On Feb. 5 of this year, he issued a statement (read by Laura Ingraham on her radio show) including, "If these [McCain vs. Obama or Clinton] are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life." And just so you know, I am not taking this out of context, I am not exaggerating the original content of the statement, nor am I putting words in the mouth of Dobson that he did not write himself. You can listen to the statement online at youtube here or you can read much of the statement verbatim here as reported by WorldNetDaily.com. You can even download the audio directly from Ingraham's site if you're a subscriber.
The logic evades me. He has the right to vote. He wants to have a say in American policy. Yet because there is not a major party candidate who supports his positions, he says he will not vote.
Wow. I can't imagine that. Women weren't guaranteed the right of suffrage in this country until 1915. I'm sure going to cast my ballot every time, whether I think the candidate will win or not. I'm gonna vote in my local elections, on school boards, in non-presidential congressional election years. I'll vote on issues of whether the road outside my house should be zoned for business or preserved for wildlife. I'm gonna vote on whether taxes should be leveed. I'M GONNA VOTE BECAUSE I AM ALLOWED TO.
I can't speak to other demographics who also had to fight for rights of suffrage. But since my demographic (women) had to fight for this right for decades and generations against great opposition, I am insulted that James Dobson so casually tosses it to the side.
Yes, I know it's everyone's choice to vote or not. Liberty with a capital "L". But I can't help thinking that when one doesn't have to fight for that right, they tend to take it for granted. I bet if there were a radical political movement in the US right now that was threatening James Dobson's right to vote, he would vote no matter what. He would vote at every opportunity he could. He would find a candidate and he would vote for them, whether or not that candidate was the nominee for a major party. Am I wrong?
I don't know how this man can be taken seriously on any issue of governance given the cavalier manner with which he has thrown to the side the most basic civic right in this country.
1 comments:
The only time I abstain from voting is when I know too little about the candidate, which occurs with smaller local elections, in particular with judges (and only because I've been too lazy or too busy to read the paper). But on the national level (presidential & congress)? There is no excuse. The parties are so far apart on enough issues? The choice easy. Abstaining because the candidate doesn't vouch for all of my issues? Absurd. Dobson is a fool.
Post a Comment