Words Have Meaning …
… unless your name is Tilghman or Duvall.
Over the last few years I have been a vociferous critic of Salisbury Mayor Barrie Tilghman. In addition to my disagreements with her policies, I have repeatedly pointed out her seeming inability to be honest with the voters of Salisbury. One reason that I have met with some success in my arguments has been my continual striving to put forward cogent arguments backed up by evidence. One of Tilghman’s tools in sloughing off arguments by those of us in the blogosphere is by pointing to a few instances by other members of the online media that are simply not true.
While I in no way advocate the position that we don’t have the right to say whatever we want online, I have pleaded that my online brethren show some responsibility in their claims. While I readily admit that my own rhetoric can be over the top at times, I am very careful to have sufficient evidence to back up any claim.
Recently, I have read more attacks by local blogger Bill Duvall on a variety of topics that are not only false, there is no evidence whatsoever to back them up.
One case in point is his attack on Maryland Sen. Andy Harris and the endorsement of his congressional candidacy by Dr. James Dobson. Duvall calls Dr. Dobson a “snake oil salesman” and a televangelist. Under normal circumstances I would simply admit that the term “snake oil salesman” is strictly subjective, yet by also calling Dr. Dobson a televangelist any who know Dobson can only attribute such attacks to ignorance. Personally I was dismayed when Dobson became politically active. I have disagreed with him on several key issues. However, as someone who can honestly state that I have listened to hundreds (if not thousands) of programs put out by Focus on the Family, Dobson is not a televangelist.
Webster’s defines televangelist as “an evangelist who conducts regularly televised religious programs. Don’t worry, I’m not going to argue a difference between radio (Dobson’s medium of choice) and television. The simple fact is that Dobson doesn’t preach. Televangelists do.
If Duvall had bothered to ever listen to a few of “Focus on the Family’s” programs he would know this. Many, if not most, of their programs and publications are focused on children and teenagers. My all time favorite, “Adventures in Odyssey” uses radio plays to teach children about such dangerous concepts as honesty and responsibility. Dobson’s own programs discuss family issues from a biblical perspective. If this makes him a televangelist, then I guess we would also have to include every individual who attempts to use the bible in guiding their lives.
More evidence of Duvall’s ignorance regarding these matters is provided by this truly bizarre claim that Dobson’s endorsement of Harris somehow explains the support of “Salisbury News” publisher Joe Albero for Harris. Duvall makes this claim in multiple posts such as here … and here. While I don’t usually get in discussions of religion with my friend and colleague Joe, I am under the distinct impression that he is not particularly devout, and as a Roman Catholic would not normally fall under the “evangelical” banner. Oddly enough, Harris is the candidate most in line with the views that Duvall has expressed over the years. While you can never prove what is in a man’s head, it’s a good bet that Duvall would be a Harris supporter if it wasn’t for his buddy Joe’s loud and unqualified support.
Duvall also ridicules Dobson for “playing the ‘it is a matter of conscience’ card”. Perhaps Mr. Duvall does not have a conscience and is unable to relate. I’m also willing to bet that he voted for Gerald Ford in the 1976 GOP primary. I remember many like Duvall attacking us that year for being “crazies” and for being more concerned with some nebulous set of principles rather than winning elections. You’re damn right! There are those of use who are (when it comes to politics) conservatives first, Republicans second. Those of us in the conservative movement may disagree with one another, but most of us try to respect the others’ point of view. While I have, and will continue to, disagree with Dobson on issues and candidates I will continue to respect his views.
Back to some facts. Duvall recently posted that Harris would be “the first non-resident (of the Eastern Shore) in the history of the Republic” if elected to Congress. This is simply false. Roy Dyson represented the district and is from St. Mary’s County. Let’s face it. If it wasn’t for a sexual scandal regarding an aide (not Dyson) he could still be representing the First District (with the possible exception of re-districting issues). I posted a comment on DuvaFiles correcting that mistake, but it was struck. Mr. Duvall doesn’t seem to handle correction very well.
In the very same post he attacks candidate Harris for “voting to give the ‘undocumenteds’ college tuition breaks not available to legal residents of 49 states of the union.” Again, this is simply not true. While I don’t dispute that Harris made the vote, which I disagree with, most (if not all) states have this loophole. Residence for purposes of college tuition is usually based on just that, residence. Colleges don’t attempt to determine the legality of that residence. Should they? YES! Do they? NO!
You’ve got a lot to say Bill. A great deal of it is good. Help yourself out, along with the rest of us, by sticking to the facts.
cross posted at Salisbury News
Technorati Tags: Maryland, Salisbury, politics, Maryland politics, Salisbury politics, blogging, Andy Harris, James Dobson, Bill Duvall
Powered by ScribeFire.Sphere: Related Content
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Dobson also says that we should discipline our children with by whipping them with switches or paddles.
http://yourchild.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/yourchild.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=779
Get a grip! While I appreciate you linking to the article, I hope people take time to read it! Dobson states:
“I recommend a neutral object of some type.
“To those who disagree on this point, I’d encourage them to do what seems right. It is not a critical issue to me. The reason I suggest a switch or paddle is because the hand should be seen as an object of love — to hold, hug, pat, and caress. However, if you’re used to suddenly disciplining with the hand, your child may not know when she’s about to be swatted and can develop a pattern of flinching when you make an unexpected move. This is not a problem if you take the time to use a neutral object.
“My mother always used a small switch, which could not do any permanent damage. But it stung enough to send a very clear message. One day when I had pushed her to the limit, she actually sent me to the backyard to cut my own instrument of punishment. I brought back a tiny little twig about seven inches long. She could not have generated anything more than a tickle with it. She never sent me on that fool’s errand again.
“As I conceded above, some people (particularly those who are opposed to spanking in the first place) believe that the use of a neutral object in discipline is tantamount to child abuse. I understand their concern, especially in cases when a parent believes “might makes right” or loses her temper and harms the child. That is why adults must always maintain a balance between love and control, regardless of the method by which they administer disciplinary action.”
Damn It! I don’t want to be put in the position of being an apologist for James Dobson. First, he really doesn’t need one. Second, I have already stated that I have several disagreements with the man (but they are primarily political).
But for a moment, let’s assume that you had written Duvall’s post. I don’t agree with what you assert, but you do provide evidence to your claim. You say “whip”, Dobson says “spank”. I think there’s a big difference, but again you do provide some evidence of your claim for people to evaluate.
Bill doesn’t do that. Periodically he makes these bizarre assertions which simply have no basis in fact.
That’s my point. I don’t care whether you like Dobson … or not. Harris … or not. Albero … or not. Even me… or not. If you are going to attack someone, stick to assertions that can be argued either logically or using evidence.
To make claims that Dobson is some snake oil selling televangelist (and we unfortunately have enough of those), when he clearly is not is wrong.
To assert that Harris is some carpet bagger who is trying to be the first person not from the Shore to represent the First District is false. Harris did not move into the District. You can argue that the District moved to him, but that doesn’t make him a carpet bagger. Dyson always was, is, and will be from St. Mary’s. Therefore the statement is logically false.
The balance is opinion only. I’m sick and tired of people like Duvall claiming to be such great Republicans and great Conservatives. He just appears to be a bitter old man who wants to be the sole arbiter of who should be able to carry the GOP standard and who is conservative. I am willing to bet that if Ronald Reagan were running today, under a different name of course, people like Duvall would deem him a “kook”. God Bless the kooks!
You are correct that Dobson has his positive points, particularly in the realm of childrearing advice . . .
Your selective criticism, however, detracts from your credibility . . .
You criticize Duvall for the absence of facts to support his arguments and the striking of comments with which he disagrees . . .
Yet you blithely ignore the same absence of facts and striking of comments practiced by your bombastically blog cohort Albero . . .
Dobson aside, Harris is going to lose . . . Gilchrest, like McCain, may not be the darling of the conservative right, but he is the solid choice of those Republicans who wish to retain the seat . . . a tough fight in 2008, no matter the nominee . . .
Harrison, you have some credibility . . . and that is something coming from me, who agrees with very little you have to say . . . but you threaten said credibility through this partnership with Albero . . .
Beware of the judgment that arises from the company you keep . . .
It bothers me that people feel that Dobson and other religious leaders like him are somehow better people than the rest of us and that we need them to tell us how to live and what to believe. All too often we see the public downfall of self appointed religious leaders from Jimmy Swaggart to Jim Bakker to Ted Haggard. All of these men of faith are just human beings like you and me, with the same flaws. They do possess a charisma and drive that attracts an audience, but in the big scheme of things, they are no more important than a soldier in Iraq or a teacher in a classroom. I would have more respect for people like Dobson if I saw less of them on Fox News and Larry King, and more pictures of them in their own community where people need the help of faith based organizations everyday.
Oceanshaman -
I appreciate your comment. You are absolutely correct that my criticism is selective. There are a few very important reasons for this. First, all criticism is selective. Think about it. You can’t criticize EVERYTHING that you may disagree with. It’s impossible. Second, since I talk to Joe almost every day I deliver my criticism to him personally (and he’ll tell you that I’ve criticized some of his posts on more than one occasion). Last, Joe posts so much stuff I don’t read it all. I have to read so much every day that I just skim through most posts until something catches my attention.
As for your comment about who will win Tuesday you may well be right. I hope not, but if Wayne wins I’ll gladly support him in the general for a variety of reasons, the least of which is that he would be the GOP nominee.
I have stated several times that I honestly believe that Andy Harris is the best candidate, yet has run the worse campaign. Given the demographic of this District for a primary, he should have been able to skate to a 10+ point victory without Pipken and still win by a few points with Pipken in the race. Unfortunately for Andy, the single largest issue going into the race has diminished somewhat (thanks to the success of the surge in Iraq). The second biggest weakness for Gilchrest is immigration. That issue was played dismally.
The bottom line - IF Wayne wins, he earned it fair and square.
ShoreThings -
I understand that you don’t like religious leaders making endorsements. Does this also apply to everyone? If not, why not?
I happen to like endorsements, for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons that I decided to support John McCain was because of the endorsements of many Reagan warriors such as Phil Gramm, Don Nickles, Jack Kemp, etc. Dobson had no impact on my decision to support Harris, but I support his right to make his views known.
Remember something about endorsements - they change the minds of relatively few voters. They do, however, help to motivate soft supporters to get up and go to the polls. This is particularly so among social conservatives.
Duvall simply refuses to post any comment that logically challenges his personal point of view, and I don’t mean profanity laced tirades. No matter how articulate or reasonable the comment may be written, if it doesn’t support his own point of view he won’t post it. His juvenile obsession with Albero is troubling, the links he provides to crude,perverted and deviant “Albero-bashing sites” is disturbing. The behaviour he professes to abhor he practices himself-hypocritical pontification is his credo.
Dobson accused Fred Thompson of not being a Christian. Is that the kind of example we should have our children and teens follow?