Radical cleric James Dobson says something foolish and ill-considered

Radical cleric James Dobson on Arlen Specter:

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, says he is not convinced by Mr. Specter's assurances that all judicial nominees will be treated fairly.

"He is a problem, and he must be derailed," Mr. Dobson said on ABC's "This Week."

Mr. Dobson described Mr. Specter's original remarks last week as "one of the most foolish and ill-considered comments that a politician has made in a long time." [my emphasis]

Hmmmm. I can think of a lot of comments that were more foolish and ill-considered than Specter saying that anti-Roe candidates don't have a snowball's chance.

Let's see...I think I recall something...yeah...here it is:

From the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush announced in a nationally televised address that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

And that's about as well-considered as this golden oldie:

President Bush said Wednesday that American troops under fire in Iraq aren't about to pull out, and he challenged those tempted to attack U.S. forces, "Bring them on."

Wait, foolish and ill-considered? I recall somethin' about consensual sex leading to dog/man ickiness:

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

[emphasis, italics, all of it -- mine, mine, mine]