The mainstream press generally makes James Dobson out to be some sort of fundamentalist ultraconservative weirdo. Honestly, that was kind of my impression of him too before I read any of his stuff. But in his books at least, he’s really fair and reasonable. His positions may come out conservative, but of what I’ve read, it’s not of the knee-jerk variety. It’s always well reasoned and gives fair consideration to all the issues involved.

That’s why I’m confused about his wanting to ban the filibuster for judicial nominess. Supposedly that’s his #1 political priority. I haven’t followed this really closely and I’m not totally sure what his exact position is, but this strikes me as being a very bad idea. Kind of on the principle of do unto others what you would have them to do you. What I mean by that is this. Republicans currently form the majority in Congress, but it’s not going to be like that forever. There will come a time when Democrats will be the majority and have judicial nominees that will be on the opposite extreme as the present situation. In that day, the filibuster will be a useful tool for conservatives. So banning the filibuster doesn’t seem very wise.

But what do I know.