Dobson Will Back Third-Party if Giuliani is Nominated

[Mortikhi]

In today’s New York Times, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson confirmed reports that the religious right has agreed to support a third party candidate if the GOP nominates pro-choicer Rudy Giuliani.

http://bodypolitik.org/2007/10/04/dobson-will-back-third-party-if-giuliani-is-nominated/

Any news that's bad for Rudy is good news to me.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

it's funny lol all of a sudden the MSM is talking about the bad things Giuliani has done :D wonder why! haha

[BW4Paul]

Any news that's bad for Rudy is good news to me.

Yup, in a situation such as this one, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. :D

[RP4ME]

WHAT pray tell is wrong with Paul????????

HElllooooo

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The MSM is now bashing Giuliani, I think they want another guy to take his numbers... they were talking about how he was insulting to people when he was talking to people a few years back lol

[max]

i dont understand why these christian leaders are not excited about Ron Paul.


He's pro-life...a professed Christian....pro-home schooling...a great example of a moral man who truly lives by Christ's philosophy

...no divorces...no adulteries...no scandals...no flip-flopping...he delivered babies for free for poor people..

i just dont get it..

Is it because he doesnt preach blind hatred of Muslims????

this reallly pisses me off

[micahnelson]

Maybe they don't know about him buddy... stay positive and tell them!

[hard@work]

Guys... it's the war. Remove that and you have gay people. So war, then gay people. But it's 99% about the war.

[paulitics]

i dont understand why these christian leaders are not excited about Ron Paul.


He's pro-life...a professed Christian....pro-home schooling...a great example of a moral man who truly lives by Christ's philosophy

...no divorces...no adulteries...no scandals...no flip-flopping...he delivered babies for free for poor people..

i just dont get it..

Is it because he doesnt preach blind hatred of Muslims????

this reallly pisses me off

Imposters like Pat Robertson have hijacked the religion and get paid alot of money to promote an agenda.

[mikelovesgod]

The reason they are not excited is because they believe Christ will come again in Jerusalem and will protect Israel because they believe Christ is here for them. These people are called Evangelical Protestants.

You don't see the same beliefs amongst Catholic Christians. Most conservative Catholics love Ron Paul. Evangelicals have this investment in Israel which is blind and will not end.

[erowe1]

The reason they are not excited is because they believe Christ will come again in Jerusalem and will protect Israel because they believe Christ is here for them. These people are called Evangelical Protestants.

You don't see the same beliefs amongst Catholic Christians. Most conservative Catholics love Ron Paul. Evangelicals have this investment in Israel which is blind and will not end.

First of all, a lot of Ron Paul's support is among evangelicals. Second of all, Ron Paul himself is an evangelical. Third of all, what does believing that Jesus will come again and reign over Israel like the Bible says have anything to do with supporting Paul for President?

[Steve Hunt]

His radical Pro Corporate neo agenda is rotten. Everything else is pretty darn good.


WHAT pray tell is wrong with Paul????????

HElllooooo

[JaylieWoW]

i dont understand why these christian leaders are not excited about Ron Paul.


He's pro-life...a professed Christian....pro-home schooling...a great example of a moral man who truly lives by Christ's philosophy

...no divorces...no adulteries...no scandals...no flip-flopping...he delivered babies for free for poor people..

i just dont get it..

Is it because he doesnt preach blind hatred of Muslims????

this reallly pisses me off

Yes, but he's against the war on drugs, in their eyes that probably makes him no better than Giuliani. You have to remember these people have an attitude like they have a direct line to God. It is people like this who wish to FORCE their morality on all of us through the use of the rule of law. They put on a good Christian "facade" but they really don't practice what they preach. They forget one of the most important lessons of Christianity, freedom of choice.

[erowe1]

Yes, but he's against the war on drugs, in their eyes that probably makes him no better than Giuliani. You have to remember these people have an attitude like they have a direct line to God. It is people like this who wish to FORCE their morality on all of us through the use of the rule of law. They put on a good Christian "facade" but they really don't practice what they preach. They forget one of the most important lessons of Christianity, freedom of choice.

Where are you people getting all these crazy ideas about evangelical voters? Ron Paul is a classic religious right candidate, straight down the line on almost every issue. The war on drugs has never been on their radar. Believe me, we need to reach out to them more. They're going to be the best friends Ron Paul ever has, and if he doesn't win that voting block, he's finished.

[JaylieWoW]

Where are you people getting all these crazy ideas about evangelical voters? Ron Paul is a classic religious right candidate, straight down the line on almost every issue. The war on drugs has never been on their radar. Believe me, we need to reach out to them more. They're going to be the best friends Ron Paul ever has, and if he doesn't win that voting block, he's finished.

Actually what I was saying was that drugs are illegal (the war on drugs right?) because of evangelicals (like those who landed us into the prohibition era) pushing for laws to make things they don't approve of (immoral) as illegal.

I'm not really sure I understand what you are saying that I said. :p

[RP4ME]

i dont understand why these christian leaders are not excited about Ron Paul.


He's pro-life...a professed Christian....pro-home schooling...a great example of a moral man who truly lives by Christ's philosophy

...no divorces...no adulteries...no scandals...no flip-flopping...he delivered babies for free for poor people..

i just dont get it..

Is it because he doesnt preach blind hatred of Muslims????

this reallly pisses me off

I know it makes my blood boil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Theyd rather elct someone who "says" he is against gay marriage and abortion than take into consideration Pauls record and integrity.......

[RP4ME]

The reason they are not excited is because they believe Christ will come again in Jerusalem and will protect Israel because they believe Christ is here for them. These people are called Evangelical Protestants.

You don't see the same beliefs amongst Catholic Christians. Most conservative Catholics love Ron Paul. Evangelicals have this investment in Israel which is blind and will not end.

uhhh thats not what they belive.......they belive christa will come again but after teh Antichrist amkes war on israel - there will be protection of it but Christ wont be on earth yet......

[erowe1]

Actually what I was saying was that drugs are illegal (the war on drugs right?) because of evangelicals (like those who landed us into the prohibition era) pushing for laws to make things they don't approve of (immoral) as illegal.

I'm not really sure I understand what you are saying that I said. :p

Why do you attribute this to evangelicals in particular? The illegalization of drugs happened long before the "religious right" became an identifiable voting block. I think you just made up the idea that the war on drugs has something to do with evangelical voters and when I called you out on it you explained yourself by making up more stuff.

The main cause for the prohibition was not so much because of some early 20th century version of the religious right. It was more a result of giving women the right to vote, the first of a century of ill-gotten results from that development. It's true that religious people generally sided with prohibition at that time. But even then it was a sentiment pretty uniformly spread across all denominations, not quite like the group this thread is talking about.

[JaylieWoW]

Why do you attribute this to evangelicals in particular? The illegalization of drugs happened long before the "religious right" became an identifiable voting block.

The main cause for the prohibition was giving women the right to vote.

Is pietist a more acceptable term for you?

[erowe1]

Is pietist a more acceptable term for you?

For what purpose? We're talking the political position of evangelical voters here. The war on drugs has never been a big issue with them no matter what label you use. What ever gave you the idea that it has been?

[hornet]

older but very good article/interview on this subject


....Three decades into America's war on drugs, some members of the religious community want to revisit the debate over addiction and how best to deal with it.

Reverend SCOTT RICHARDSON (All Saints Church): There are a lot of people who still believe that addiction has essentially to do with weakness or bad morals or some kind of poor sense of discipline in a person's life. That doesn't really explain fully -- it doesn't even get close to explaining what addiction is about.

Reverend HOWARD MOODY (Religious Leaders for a More Just & Compassionate Drug Policy): The federal laws are very harsh, and so we're trying to help people understand what that does to send people away for that length of time and to work at the whole question of humanizing -- of the humanizing of the drug addict.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week406/feature.html

[RP4ME]

Where are you people getting all these crazy ideas about evangelical voters? Ron Paul is a classic religious right candidate, straight down the line on almost every issue. The war on drugs has never been on their radar. Believe me, we need to reach out to them more. They're going to be the best friends Ron Paul ever has, and if he doesn't win that voting block, he's finished.

Its very much on theri radar...it si thrown in my face everytime I get into a discussion about RP with neocn evangelicals...

[jblosser]

For what purpose? We're talking the political position of evangelical voters here. The war on drugs has never been a big issue with them no matter what label you use. What ever gave you the idea that it has been?

Are you forgetting who gave us "Just Say No"?

It's far from a universal position of the religious right but it is very prevalent, especially in the midwest.

[Marshall]

The Christian Right Loves Giuliani
Posted by Lew Rockwell at 01:22 PM

I have long thought that the Christian Right would have no trouble supporting the Rudester because he is as pro-war and pro-police state as they are. And James Dobson won't be an exception, after he is promised patronage. That is the point of his protest. And now John Hagee says on TV that he can endorse Giuliani--despite pledging never to support a pro-choice candidate--because Rudy is more pro-Israel than Hillary. (Thanks to KC)

[RP4ME]

The Christian Right Loves Giuliani
Posted by Lew Rockwell at 01:22 PM

I have long thought that the Christian Right would have no trouble supporting the Rudester because he is as pro-war and pro-police state as they are. And James Dobson won't be an exception, after he is promised patronage. That is the point of his protest. And now John Hagee says on TV that he can endorse Giuliani--despite pledging never to support a pro-choice candidate--because Rudy is more pro-Israel than Hillary. (Thanks to KC)


YEs its all about Isreal - these guys will offer the USA up for sacrficie before giving up financial and military aid to Isreal!

[erowe1]

Its very much on theri radar...it si thrown in my face everytime I get into a discussion about RP with neocn evangelicals...

Which group are you talking about neocons or evangelicals? They are two totally different groups.

[erowe1]

Are you forgetting who gave us "Just Say No"?

It's far from a universal position of the religious right but it is very prevalent, especially in the midwest.

Yes. Nancy Reagan gave us "Just say no." She's a new age fanatic who has never been identified with the religious right.

[briatx]

There's two main reasons why the Religious Right doesn't like Paul.

1) The Christian Zionism aspect. No unconditional support for Israel, no billions in support. The end times factor into this as well as the GWOT.

2) Its not enough to support a Christian position. The Religious Right are Theocrats. They don't just want the freedom to practice religion, but they want to enforce their beliefs onto the rest of the country. Hence, prohibited abortion, prohibited gay marriage, federally funded "Faith based" initiatives, prohibted stem cell research, forced creationism curriculum, etc.

I say this as someone who grew up a true believer in a small private Christian school.

Like the Republican party and the conservative label, the Christians have been coopted and twisted into something they should be fighting against. Another chapter in the long, sad history of politicized religion.

[erowe1]

YEs its all about Isreal - these guys will offer the USA up for sacrficie before giving up financial and military aid to Isreal!

What guys are you talking about? If you're saying that you think that evangelical voters won't support Paul, your contention is supported by zero evidence. So far there have been several major developments where representatives of the evangelical voting block have had opportunities to weigh in on their favorite candidates. So far, in every case, Paul has done very well. In some events, like the Values Voter debate and the Palmetto Family Council straw poll, he has come in second, which is not too shabby for such a crowded field. In other areas, such as the recent endorsement from the Constitution Party and his position of favor with the John Birch Society, he has come out ahead of all the rest. In any case, he's positioned to do well with conservative evangelical Protestant voters by every measure.

On the issue of support for Israel, it's important to remember that Paul's position is not anti-Israel. His view on support for Israel is the same as his view on support for any other friendly country--namely a strict non-interventionist policy. Christians who still want their money to be used to buy weapons for Israel will still be more than welcome to donate their money freely to that cause. There's no need to make this an issue that puts them on the defensive.

[erowe1]

There's two main reasons why the Religious Right doesn't like Paul.

1) The Christian Zionism aspect. No unconditional support for Israel, no billions in support. The end times factor into this as well as the GWOT.

2) Its not enough to support a Christian position. The Religious Right are Theocrats. They don't just want the freedom to practice religion, but they want to enforce their beliefs onto the rest of the country. Hence, prohibited abortion, prohibited gay marriage, federally funded "Faith based" initiatives, prohibted stem cell research, forced creationism curriculum, etc.

I say this as someone who grew up a true believer in a small private Christian school.

Like the Republican party and the conservative label, the Christians have been coopted and twisted into something they should be fighting against. Another chapter in the long, sad history of politicized religion.


Please, guys, whoever has bewitched you to make you think that the religious right doesn't like Ron Paul? That's just not true. Please, stop writing them off. All the evidence suggests that, by and large, the religious right looks pretty favorably on Ron Paul, and he stands to continue gaining votes from them as the field of contenders thins out. In fact, once Huckabee bows out, we have every reason to believe that Paul will run away with the evangelical vote.

On most of the issues you listed Ron Paul is lock step with the religious right. He is staunchly 100% pro-life, wants Roe v. Wade overturned and abortions outlawed by the states. He is against state approval of gay marriage. He is against any federal funding for stem-cell research. And he is for freedom in education. He supports the rights of home schoolers and Christian schools. He opposes the Dept. of Education entirely. These are precisely the ideal positions for creationists. I don't know why you think otherwise.

Now on the issue of faith-based initiatives. You're right, that's a messed up idea. But, quite frankly, it's not a traditional position supported by the religious right. It's a new thing that G.W. Bush came up with and managed to woo a lot of Christians. But, for the most part, this has been more appealing to liberal Christians than it has been to the religious right, who would generally rather send their money to the ministry of their choice, rather than the ministry of Ted Kennedy's choice.

On evangelical views of the end-times. There is nothing incompatible with holding those views and believing in a non-interventionist foreign policy.

[austin356]

First of all, a lot of Ron Paul's support is among evangelicals. Second of all, Ron Paul himself is an evangelical. Third of all, what does believing that Jesus will come again and reign over Israel like the Bible says have anything to do with supporting Paul for President?

amen!


I know 4 highly evangelical Christians, one of which is a Hagee reader, that are Paulers.

Just because someone believes the things the current church does, it does not make them at odds with Paul's positions. The only things are odds are the application of those positions. You can be a zionist while still believing the US should not be giving aid. etc, etc

[wgadget]

I'm one. Ron Paul's views on liberty are refreshing and the first time I heard them it was like a V-8 moment. Duh...Why didn't I see that before? Freedom trumps all the division and values-rule making that I thought was necessary before.

I heard Dobson on Hannity today. Anyone else hear it? He said that there ARE lower tier candidates that they might support. Hannity kept pressing on McCain/Thompson/Giluiani, whom Dobson adamantly WILL NOT SUPPORT.

But several times he did mention the second tier....And now that Ron's doing so much better than the others, who knows? Keep working on em..

Now I wonder why these evangelicals have so much FEAR (which is not Biblical) both for their future and for Israel's future. I mean, gosh, I thought GOD was in control....

[erowe1]

Now I wonder why these evangelicals have so much FEAR (which is not Biblical) both for their future and for Israel's future. I mean, gosh, I thought GOD was in control....

The issue of the level of control God has is actually a matter of disagreement among evangelicals. Some, like Dobson, believe very strongly in human free will, and hence reject the more classical protestant idea of absolute predestination. Also, I don't think Dobson is as concerned about Israel as you may assume. Granted, some others like Hagee and Pat Robertson are. But I think people here tend to overestimate the significance of evangelical end-times beliefs about Israel as to how they impact American politics. I went to a strict conservative dispensational seminary. That means a seminary that believed very strongly in the literal interpretation of biblical prophecy concerning Israel and the end-times. You can look this school up at www.bible.edu. I can tell you that the faculty there, despite their views about biblical prophecy, by a large majority did not believe that the American government had any obligation to support the modern state of Israel. And most other evangelical seminaries would be even less inclined to support Israel than mine.

[erowe1]

Here's a good site I just found.
http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/

[wgadget]

Here's a good site I just found.
http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/



By all means, send it to Dobson.

[Triton]

I'm one. Ron Paul's views on liberty are refreshing and the first time I heard them it was like a V-8 moment. Duh...Why didn't I see that before? Freedom trumps all the division and values-rule making that I thought was necessary before.

I heard Dobson on Hannity today. Anyone else hear it? He said that there ARE lower tier candidates that they might support. Hannity kept pressing on McCain/Thompson/Giluiani, whom Dobson adamantly WILL NOT SUPPORT.

But several times he did mention the second tier....And now that Ron's doing so much better than the others, who knows? Keep working on em..

Now I wonder why these evangelicals have so much FEAR (which is not Biblical) both for their future and for Israel's future. I mean, gosh, I thought GOD was in control....Dobson will support Huckabee.

[Triton]

Also, I don't think Dobson is as concerned about Israel as you may assume. Granted, some others like Hagee and Pat Robertson are. But I think people here tend to overestimate the significance of evangelical end-times beliefs about Israel as to how they impact American politics. I went to a strict conservative dispensational seminary. That means a seminary that believed very strongly in the literal interpretation of biblical prophecy concerning Israel and the end-times. You can look this school up at www.bible.edu (http://www.bible.edu). I can tell you that the faculty there, despite their views about biblical prophecy, by a large majority did not believe that the American government had any obligation to support the modern state of Israel. And most other evangelical seminaries would be even less inclined to support Israel than mine.That is an optimistic viewpoint, and I pray that you are coprrect. I find this hard to believe. Until I see them specifically deny, I think Dobson, et all, would spill American blood by the tanker to defend "israel".

[Pete]

There's two main reasons why the Religious Right doesn't like Paul.

1) The Christian Zionism aspect. No unconditional support for Israel, no billions in support. The end times factor into this as well as the GWOT.

2) Its not enough to support a Christian position. The Religious Right are Theocrats. They don't just want the freedom to practice religion, but they want to enforce their beliefs onto the rest of the country. Hence, prohibited abortion, prohibited gay marriage, federally funded "Faith based" initiatives, prohibted stem cell research, forced creationism curriculum, etc.

I say this as someone who grew up a true believer in a small private Christian school.

Like the Republican party and the conservative label, the Christians have been coopted and twisted into something they should be fighting against. Another chapter in the long, sad history of politicized religion.

Speaking of end times, the Bible states that at Armageddon Israel will have no allies at all. So, if a Christian believes the Bible, why should he be so concerned about propping up Israel? This vision also implies that if there is such a thing as the United States at that time, it will join in the attack. My view on all this is that End Times theology should not be a factor in our elections. The only clear marching orders I have are to not accept a mark on the head or the hand.

Yeah, I agree with the Religious Right being theological equivalents of neoconservatives. Their aggressive views are antithetical to Christianity, although their ranks contain many good people who have been suckered. We need to reach out to them, and not condemn them out of hand.

[erowe1]

That is an optimistic viewpoint, and I pray that you are coprrect. I find this hard to believe. Until I see them specifically deny, I think Dobson, et all, would spill American blood by the tanker to defend "israel".

What is your evidence for saying this, particularly about Dobson?

[inibo]

His radical Pro Corporate neo agenda is rotten. Everything else is pretty darn good.

You are making it pretty apparent that you really don't grok the idea of a free market. Free exchange is the way humans interact, whether socially, philosophically, romantically or economically. Any form of coercion that inhibits free exchange is destructive of human liberty.

Ron Paul is opposed to corporate subsidies in any form. The corporations you rail against are only able to operate because they are subsidized by the state, either in the form of tax breaks or regulatory relief. If limited liability and monopoly protection were removed they would be forced to compete with entrepreneurs who didn't suck and they would lose that battle.

[Triton]

What is your evidence for saying this, particularly about Dobson?Try this (http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=dobson+and+israel&fr=yfp-t-471&u=www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/14/news/israel.php&w=dobson+israel&d=acrJXudmPf_C&icp=1&.intl=us). He says it right in the article, "My theology indicates that Israel is covenant land,"

His bad theology is why many evangelicals will vote for a neo-con over and over again: they believe we (Christian Americans) have a responsibility to protect "israel", which is not really Israel at all (we believers are).

By the way - if you look at my quote, I did not rule out the possibility that I could be wrong about the gullibility of some believers in this coluntry.

[erowe1]

Try this (http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=dobson+and+israel&fr=yfp-t-471&u=www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/14/news/israel.php&w=dobson+israel&d=acrJXudmPf_C&icp=1&.intl=us). He says it right in the article, "My theology indicates that Israel is covenant land,"

His bad theology is why many evangelicals will vote for a neo-con over and over again: they believe we (Christian Americans) have a responsibility to protect "israel", which is not really Israel at all (we believers are).

By the way - if you look at my quote, I did not rule out the possibility that I could be wrong about the gullibility of some believers in this coluntry.

The article wouldn't come up. But if he says, "My theology indicates that Israel is covenant land," well, so what?

That doesn't have any necessary implications about the US govt. buying weapons for the modern state of Israel. I also believe that God's covenants with Israel are for ethnic Israel, including his promise of that land. I don't accept your view about Christians being Israel. And I don't see an obligation to hold interventionist foreign policy as a consequence of these beliefs. This belief system is called "dispensationalism". As I mentioned, I attended one of the nation's most conservative dispensational seminaries, and the majority of the faculty there do not believe that our federal government has any obligation to involve itself in the affairs of the modern state of Israel.

In dealing with evangelicals, there is no need to try to change their theology or to put them on the defensive about their view of Israel. Under a Paul presidency they will be more than welcome to continue supporting Israel and sending their $ to help Israel buy weapons all they want. Our appeal to them should be a simple message of small-government conservatism, emphasizing individual responsibility and the freedom to spend one's money on the causes of one's choice, rather than the causes of Ted Kennedy's choice. This is a message that resonates very well with evangelical voters and always has.

Ron Paul is the best opportunity the religious right has had in a very long time, if not ever. It doesn't help the cause when the more "libertarian" Paul supporters try to set up barriers that don't really exist between him and the evangelical voting block, a voting block he absolutely needs if he is to win.

[erowe1]

Here's just one more piece of evidence to add to the stack of indisputable proof I've already given to show that Ron Paul is in a favorable position with the evangelical wing of the GOP.
His Iowa chair just won the "Friend of the Family Award" from the Iowa Christian Alliance.
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1231

[Triton]

The article wouldn't come up. But if he says, "My theology indicates that Israel is covenant land," well, so what?

That doesn't have any necessary implications about the US govt. buying weapons for the modern state of Israel. I also believe that God's covenants with Israel are for ethnic Israel, including his promise of that land. I don't accept your view about Christians being Israel. And I don't see an obligation to hold interventionist foreign policy as a consequence of these beliefs. This belief system is called "dispensationalism". As I mentioned, I attended one of the nation's most conservative dispensational seminaries, and the majority of the faculty there do not believe that our federal government has any obligation to involve itself in the affairs of the modern state of Israel.

In dealing with evangelicals, there is no need to try to change their theology or to put them on the defensive about their view of Israel. Under a Paul presidency they will be more than welcome to continue supporting Israel and sending their $ to help Israel buy weapons all they want. Our appeal to them should be a simple message of small-government conservatism, emphasizing individual responsibility and the freedom to spend one's money on the causes of one's choice, rather than the causes of Ted Kennedy's choice. This is a message that resonates very well with evangelical voters and always has.

Ron Paul is the best opportunity the religious right has had in a very long time, if not ever. It doesn't help the cause when the more "libertarian" Paul supporters try to set up barriers that don't really exist between him and the evangelical voting block, a voting block he absolutely needs if he is to win.You don't need to be defensive, and you'd be wrong anyway: Dobson is a dispensationlist, and they are the ones who give the Neocons their agenda re: "israel". Nobody says we need to make this anything more than a friendly in-house debate. If anyone should be taken to task, it's pastors who teach falsehood and politicians who knowingly use it to their advantage.

[erowe1]

You don't need to be defensive, and you'd be wrong anyway: Dobson is a dispensationlist, and they are the ones who give the Neocons their agenda re: "israel". Nobody says we need to make this anything more than a friendly in-house debate. If anyone should be taken to task, it's pastors who teach falsehood and politicians who knowingly use it to their advantage.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I am also a dispensationalist. I know a lot of dispensationalists, including numerous pastors and seminary professors. There is no doctrine in dispensationalism that requires us to believe our government is obligated to involve itself in the affairs of the modern state of Israel. Nor am I aware that Dobson believes that. The quote you gave is certainly not evidence of it. So if that's the worst thing you could find, I'd say the evidence does not support your contention.

The idea that evangelical views of prophecies concerning biblical Israel is behind US foreign policy is a red herring. Most evangelicals, including dispensationalists feel less compelled by Scripture to support interventionist foreign policy on Israel's behalf than you might think. Hagee and Pat Robertson are the exception, not the rule.

It is certainly not the case that there is a close relationship between neocons and dispensational Christian voters as you assert. The neo-conservative movement is mainly populated by socially liberal Republicans. You won't find William Kristol on most evangelicals' reading lists. The ideas that drive the neoconservative movement are completely different from those that drive the relatively insignificant political force of Christian zionists.

Finally, I wasn't talking about me being defensive. I couldn't care less about people wanting to argue with me about something. I'm talking about the idea that has been popping up in this thread and all over these forums suggesting that Ron Paul is not likely to win the support of the religious right. This suggestion is based on a pure caricature of the religious right and is not supported by facts. Treating members of that voting block as though they stand for something different that what Ron Paul stands for (which they don't) is to put them on the defensive unnecessarily. Doing that is counter-productive. Those voters will turn out to be the best friends Ron Paul could ask for.