I noticed over the weekend that James Dobson’s very-public threats over judicial nominations generated a lot of attention. I’m just not sure why.
James C. Dobson, the nation’s most influential evangelical leader, is threatening to put six potentially vulnerable Democratic senators “in the ‘bull’s-eye’ ” if they block conservative appointments to the Supreme Court.
In a letter his aides say is being sent to more than one million of his supporters, Dr. Dobson, the child psychologist and founder of the evangelical organization Focus on the Family, promises “a battle of enormous proportions from sea to shining sea” if President Bush fails to appoint “strict constructionist” jurists or if Democrats filibuster to block conservative nominees.
Dr. Dobson recalled the conservative efforts that helped in the November defeat of Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Senate minority leader who led Democrats in using the filibuster to block 10 of Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees.
“Let his colleagues beware,” Dr. Dobson warned, “especially those representing ‘red’ states. Many of them will be in the ‘bull’s-eye’ the next time they seek re-election.”
He singled out Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Bill Nelson of Florida. All six are up for re-election in 2006.
Let me get this straight. A right-wing evangelical leader is suggesting that he’ll get other right-wing evangelicals to vote against Democratic candidates in 2006 unless they side with the Republicans? Maybe I’m confused, but aren’t right-wing evangelicals going to vote against them anyway?
This sounds far more like a publicity stunt for Dobson to raise some money and less like a meaningful campaign development. After all, Dobson singled out Ben Nelson as a likely recipient of one of the dreaded “bull’s-eyes,” despite a legislative record Dobson should be relatively sympathetic towards.
David DiMartino, a spokesman for Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, said the senator was already an opponent of abortion rights and had never supported a filibuster of one of Mr. Bush’s appellate nominees.
“Dr. Dobson knows that,” Mr. DiMartino said. “The senator and Dr. Dobson have discussed it before. The fact that the media has the letter before the targeted senators indicates his intention has more to do with the media than with persuading anybody in the Senate.”
In other words, Dobson’s letter is a cheap stunt from a man who’s desperate to flex some political muscle. Like his ideological cohorts (Falwell, Robertson, et al), Dobson wants to seize the moment and be perceived as the new political “boss” in town.
Oddly enough, not everyone in Dobson’s religious right movement is on board.
In the aftermath of the election, some of Dr. Dobson’s allies are warning their fellow evangelicals not to be seduced by political deal-making. In “an open letter to the Christian church” last month, Charles W. Colson, the born-again Nixon aide and another influential Christian conservative, warned against listing demands of the president or other elected officials.
“To think that way demeans the Christian movement,” Mr. Colson wrote with his associate Mark Earley. “We are not anybody’s special interest group.”
Dobson, obviously, disagrees. He not only wants to lead a special interest group, he wants to lead the most important special interest group. For Dobson, converting his faith into a political operation may or may not demean Christianity, but the answer is largely irrelevant to him. His goal is about power and right-wing politics, not piety. He’s an activist, not a reverend.
Should Dems be worried? Yes, but no more so than we were before we learned of Dobson’s latest stunt. It’s sad, but it’s nothing new.