An Apostle of Alaska

« Return to Article

Discuss

  • Posted By: slfarringer @ 09/08/2008 4:30:16 AM

    It has always been my understanding that the single most imperative role of any vice president of our United States is to be qualified to step into the position of presidency should the current president no longer govern. Therefore, it confounds me as to why John McCain would have chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate. The only conclusion I could garner from this insidious selection is that he is impulsive, selfish, imprudent, reckless and desperate.



    This cursory decision trumped his many more qualified choices because he knew the voters he needed would be so out of touch as to fall in line with someone who, on the outside ascribes to the gender, physical attraction and self righteous qualities he lacks but on the inside is a continuation of the politico neoconservatives that initially separated him from his own failing party. It is most unfortunate and profoundly stunning that the substantial issues representing a party could, once again, become a nonessential stipulation to defining our next president.



    If enough Americans don't question their own superficial reasoning, educate themselves to the outcome of a continuum to a downward spiraling recessive nation and wake up to the detriment of their potential voting decisions against necessary change, we will soon become not only a country wallowing in our own inadvertent depression but also a once sovereign state left far behind from the rest of the world

  • Posted By: zbrd @ 09/08/2008 3:23:32 AM

    This seemed like a relatively objective assessment. The only objection I had concerned the religious aspect. Here they totally missed the boat.

    Not that that's surprising. The mainstream media simply have no basis on which to evaluate or understand evangelical Christians. One writer (Noah Goldberg?) asked, ???How can a New York Times columnist claim to know what evangelicals are going to do? Most of them aren???t even acquainted with an evangelical.???

    Ravi Zaharias said, ???We are living in a time when you can believe anything, as long as you do not claim it to be true.??? There is a new, politically correct standard for religion in this country, and it is Universalism. Any religion you care to espouse is fine with the MSM???as long as it is Universalism. I.e., you are required to believe and confess that ALL religions are equally valid and that ALL religions can lead to salvation, not just yours. If you are not willing to say this, you are considered an extremist. If you dare to express religious convictions that do not line up with Universalism, such as the historic Christian claim that people are saved alone through faith in Jesus Christ, you are guilty of ???hate speech.???

    Small wonder, then, that the MSM???s reaction to Sarah Palin???s Christian faith ranges from astonishment to ridicule. The simple fact is that people who are not Christians don???t understand people who are, and cannot be expected to. The Apostle Paul said, ???For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.??? I Cor. 1:18.

  • Posted By: zbrd @ 09/08/2008 3:21:37 AM

    I found the article relatively objective until it came to the religious aspect. that was just as disconnected as the articles I've read in the NYT and Washington Post.

    Problem: the mainstream media simply have no basis on which to evaluate or understand evangelical Christians. One writer (Noah Goldberg?) asked, ???How can a New York Times columnist claim to know what evangelicals are going to do? Most of them aren???t even acquainted with an evangelical.???

    Ravi Zaharias said, ???We are living in a time when you can believe anything, as long as you do not claim it to be true.??? There is a new, politically correct standard for religion in this country, and it is Universalism. Any religion you care to espouse is fine with the MSM???as long as it is Universalism. I.e., you are required to believe and confess that ALL religions are equally valid and that ALL religions can lead to salvation, not just yours. If you are not willing to say this, you are considered an extremist. If you dare to express religious convictions that do not line up with Universalism, such as the historic Christian claim that people are saved alone through faith in Jesus Christ, you are guilty of ???hate speech.???

    Small wonder, then, that the MSM???s reaction to Sarah Palin???s Christian faith ranges from astonishment to ridicule. The simple fact is that people who are not Christians don???t understand people who are, and cannot be expected to. The Apostle Paul said, ???For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.??? I Cor. 1:18.

  • Posted By: Yes! We ALL Can @ 09/08/2008 2:53:45 AM

    WOW! Cowardly Palin finally agrees to an inteview - although she had to get permission from Steve Schmidt who runs the McCain campaign. I guess that 60 day media ban strategy didn't quite work out!! Seems like pressure from voters, media and all other interested partie would like to hear her stance on her extremist views - that's if Charlie Gibson (softy for the republicans) will ask the tough questions he needs to ask! Remember the primary debates where Charles and George questioned Barack about tabloid stories?! We expect no less than that same performance from you Charlie!! You don't want to be accused of media bias do you?

    Palin's first instinct to cower from all press interviews, as I wrote earlier, still provides a revealing look into her character:


    She talks tough about reporters, but can't face them; she talks up government ethics, but won't answer an investigation under oath; she raves about her own pit-bull image on stage, but betrays a cowardice under actual pressure. In some ways, she is living out the very caricature that she drew of Obama last week -- all talk, no action -- coupled with the smug attitude of her predecessor, the sarcastic swagger and faux-populism of George W. Bush.

  • Posted By: labman57 @ 09/08/2008 2:15:36 AM

    So let's see if we can summarize the GOP platform based on policies and statements put forth by McCain and Palin.

    1) Provide disproportionate tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans (cuz you can never have too much freekin' money)

    2) Eliminate all porkbelly spending and federal earmarks (unless you're the governor of Alaska)

    3) Show our military might wherever needed overseas (cuz the military has SO many underutilized soldiers with nothing to do. Can you say DRAFT?)

    4) Continue to deregulate the energy and financial industries (cuz they are so capable of self-regulation, as can be seen in the oil futures market and the mortgage industry)

    5) Keep government small and respect state's right. Do not intrude in the policies and decisions of states (unless you happen to be gay, need an abortion, or use medical marijuana during cancer treatments)

    6) Continue to push for abstinence-only sex education in the public schools (cuz you can see how well that worked for Palin's family)

    7) Strive to improve public education to make us more competitive in the global economy (except that we'll replace evolution with creationism)

    8) Ignore the melting ice caps resulting from global warming (cuz who gives a damn if polar bears go extinct. There are plenty of other animals to hunt anyway)

    9) Use up the planet's natural resources as rapidly as we can--drill, baby, drill (cuz that's what God intended)

    10) and as McCain was recently quoted, "The economy is basically sound". (cuz, holy crap--he has more houses than he can count, so the economy must be sound FOR HIM).

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 09/07/2008 10:11:30 PM

    This is why Barack is Qualified to be President and Palin is Not... Over 7 Years as a State Senator, with laws made that have been implemented in his Name, that Illinois State residence must Follow. Federal Sentor, with National Laws confirmed via President george W. Bush himself..Stop belieing palin's Bush Speech Writer...Wikipedia You, Mother Luva !!
    -------------------------------
    A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate in January 2003. After a primary victory in March 2004, Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote.
    --------------------------------
    As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During the 110th Congress, he helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel. After announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, energy independence, decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities.
    -----------------------------

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 09/08/2008 1:45:21 AM


      That is fine and dandy Omaar, but:

      What I would like to know is what legistlature specifically (and / or how much) has Obama LED that was passed in the US Senate? You know, legislature he has created himself in which he was the SPONSOR (not just a co-sponsor in which anyone can jump on a bill)? I am sure there are some bills. . .do you know which ones?

    • Posted By: mccaincursingonyoutube @ 09/07/2008 10:19:07 PM

      I love it!

      • Posted By: Omaar @ 09/07/2008 10:46:08 PM

        Go to the Huffington Post, Crazy, Maniac McCain, is Pushing Aside a Woman in a Wheelchair...I Kid you not !!!

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 09/07/2008 8:23:24 PM

    Barack Obama: 109th Congress

    Obama took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform. In 2005, he cosponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).[23] He later added three amendments to the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act", which passed the Senate in May 2006, but failed to gain majority support in the U.S. House of Representatives. In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States???Mexico border. President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it "an important step toward immigration reform."


    Senate bill sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Obama discuss the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act. Partnering first with Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), and then with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.[28][29][30] The Lugar-Obama initiative subsequently received $48 million in funding. The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for the web site USAspending.gov, managed by the Office of Management and Budget. The site lists all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward and provides breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract. In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.

    As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In August 2005, he traveled to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. The trip focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks.[34] Following meetings with U.S. military in Kuwait and Iraq in January 2006, Obama visited Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories. At a meeting with Palestinian students two weeks before Hamas won the legislative election, Obama warned that "the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel." He left for his third official trip in August 2006, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke forcefully on the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya. The speech touched off a public debate among rival leaders, some formally challenging Obama's remarks as unfair and im

    • Posted By: BBIinMass @ 09/07/2008 10:57:00 PM

      Thank you! Very informative!

      • Posted By: sharenews @ 09/08/2008 1:36:45 AM

        Well maybe you can answer this for me then as I still have no response from Omaar:

        What I would like to know is what legislature (and / or how much) has Obama LED that GOT PASSED in the US Senate? You know, legislature he (OBAMA) created himself in which he was the SPONSOR (not just a co-sponsor)? I am sure there are some bills. . .do you know which ones? Also, I used to have the link to lookup legislature and I misplaced it . . . do you or anyone else know the site URL? I will do some googling in the meantime. ; 0 D

  • Posted By: Iron Horse @ 09/08/2008 12:34:42 AM

    This is a serious question: Someone explain to me how Palin is pro-life
    when it comes to fetuses but then is for capital punishment?
    =======================
    Lisaooo: The explanation is that simple and plain. Sarah Palin, like most conservative Republicans who support the death penalty and oppose abortion, is a HYPOCRITE, period. That's right, Sarah palin and her social conservative, God-fearing felow Americans actually follow a new religion called HYPOCRISY. Just like Bush saying that life is sacred, but then doing nothing as thousands died in Iraq because of his reckless policies that his conservative friends happily support.
    We are hated by others in the world because they correctly see us as hypocrites with contradictory values. And they know how we try to mix God and politics and use God's name to advance and impose our so-called "moral values". There is NO moral values as defined and uttered by Republicans, but true human moral values as defined by humanity at large.

  • Posted By: Yes! We ALL Can @ 09/08/2008 12:23:04 AM

    sea oBSERVER - THE NASTINESS DISPLAYED by the republican party during thier convention was beyond belief!! Don't preach to democrats about nastiness!! When democrats have been in office - the ENTIRE COUNTRY has had peach and prosperity for everyone!! Even the wealthy!! Secondly at the republican convention - no policies were mentioned or how they intended to help the American people! All they cared about was attacking, attacking, attacking!! Americans are sick and tired of all the attacking and lies from your party!! You sound just like the McCain-Bush-Palin campaign attacking and making things up. GOP is fired!!!

  • Posted By: fatimaalbert @ 09/08/2008 12:06:44 AM

    This piece of trash article is the type of elitist crap that people all over this country find objectionable - and why Palin is here to stay. The author treats Palin's faith like a far-off religion when Pentecostals are the fatest growing religion in the world. This piece is so biased.

  • Posted By: zeebop @ 09/08/2008 12:06:07 AM

    Sarah Palin believes in God, but she is not a godess who has come from above to the lower 48 to save us from all evil and organize our lives in her blackberry as she breast feeds her baby and dictates policy and rules the country while watching a hockey game...but then again maybe she can do all this, after all she is portrayed as a "super mom" . Maybe she really is a pitbull with lipstick, we will soon find out.

  • Posted By: Iron Horse @ 09/08/2008 12:04:41 AM

    loriw:
    I thank you for trying your best to convince me and explain your reasoning for being a McCain backer. But as a history major, I find it difficult to believe your arguments.
    You say Starbucks costs more than gas? But does America need coffee in order to transport itself? Are our cars and other transport vehicles powered by coffee? If so, then there is no doubt in my heart that peopl would be complaining bitterly.
    I cannot tell if you are a really, really hard working American by the words you use. Because if you are, every hard working person I have met feel the economy was much better durin Bill's presidency (after all, it was Democratic FDR who uplifted the nation from the Great Depression, while Republican Hoover did almost nothing because he thought people can best solve their economic plight on their own). And what percentage was the unemployment now and during Bill's presidency? (By the way, I am not a supporter of Bill Clinton).

  • Posted By: lisaooo @ 09/07/2008 11:53:52 PM

    LoriW: If you have any gay person in your life, you won't vote for McCain-Palin. If you have any woman in your life who you want to preserve the right to make her choice to have an abortion, you won't vote for McCain-Palin. If you do not want your government run by people who think their religious beliefs dominate their decisions and direction the country should go in, and want others to conform, then you won't vote for McCain-Palin. If you don't want your government to focus on big business and war primarily, you won't vote for McCain-Palin. If you don't want your government to be partisan, divisive, xenophobic, overly-nationalistic, and disliked by the greater world community, you won't vote for McCain-Palin. These are big issues. Maybe you could vote for Obama and then write him a letter (or your local Senator) about the issue with newborns that you have. Or work with a local group to advocate for the law as you want it.

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 09/07/2008 8:25:40 PM

    Barack Obama: 109th Congress

    Obama took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform. In 2005, he cosponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).[23] He later added three amendments to the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act", which passed the Senate in May 2006, but failed to gain majority support in the U.S. House of Representatives. In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States???Mexico border. President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it "an important step toward immigration reform."


    Senate bill sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Obama discuss the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act. Partnering first with Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), and then with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.[28][29][30] The Lugar-Obama initiative subsequently received $48 million in funding. The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for the web site USAspending.gov, managed by the Office of Management and Budget. The site lists all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward and provides breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract. In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.

    As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In August 2005, he traveled to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. The trip focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks.[34] Following meetings with U.S. military in Kuwait and Iraq in January 2006, Obama visited Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories. At a meeting with Palestinian students two weeks before Hamas won the legislative election, Obama warned that "the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel." He left for his third official trip in August 2006, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke forcefully on the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya. The speech touched off a public debate among rival leaders, some formally challenging Obama's remarks as unfair and imp

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 09/07/2008 11:53:25 PM


      1. Thanks. Your post is informative, but what I would like to know is what (and / or how much) legislature has Obama LED and got passed in the US Senate? You know, legislature he has created himself in which he was the SPONSOR (not co-sponsor)? I am sure there are some bills. . .do you know which ones?

      2. Glad you brought up the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Prior to Obamas tour across the pond (which he can thank McCain for prodding him to visit Iraq cuz it got him to get his butt over to meet European leaders at the same time) Obama was having no interaction in Europe given the committee/sub-committee he was supposed to be stewarding):
      .
      OBAMAS EUROPEAN PROBLEM
      By Joe Conason
      Dec. 29, 2007 |

      The senator may have traveled widely, but the critically important subcommittee on Europe has languished under his leadership.

      Doubts about Barack Obama's presidential credentials have crystallized during the past two weeks over his stewardship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has convened no policy hearings since he took over as its chairman last January (2007). That startling fact, first uncovered by Steve Clemons, who blogs on the Washington Note, prompted acid comment in Europe about the Illinois senators failure to visit the continent since assuming the committee post, and even speculation that he had never traveled there except for a short stopover in London.

      http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/index.html

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 09/07/2008 11:47:42 PM


      1. Thanks. Your post is informative, but what I would like to know is what (and / or how much) legislature has Obama LED and got passed in the US Senate? You know, legislature he has created himself in which he was the SPONSOR (not just a co-sponsor)? I am sure there are some bills. . .do you know which ones?

      2. Glad you brought up the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Prior to Obamas tour across the pond (which he can thank McCain for prodding him to visit Iraq cuz it got him to get his butt over to meet European leaders at the same time) Obama was having no interaction in Europe given the committee/sub-committee he was supposed to be stewarding):
      .
      OBAMAS EUROPEAN PROBLEM
      By Joe Conason
      Dec. 29, 2007 |

      The senator may have traveled widely, but the critically important subcommittee on Europe has languished under his leadership.

      Doubts about Barack Obama's presidential credentials have crystallized during the past two weeks over his stewardship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has convened no policy hearings since he took over as its chairman last January (2007). That startling fact, first uncovered by Steve Clemons, who blogs on the Washington Note, prompted acid comment in Europe about the Illinois senators failure to visit the continent since assuming the committee post, and even speculation that he had never traveled there except for a short stopover in London.

      http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/index.html

  • Posted By: TheVigil @ 09/07/2008 9:45:47 PM

    Boy.

    I'm proud of Barack Obama. And I'm proud of Sarah Palin.

    And no matter what happens, this election is historic because at least half of Americans have embraced one or the other. Never could have happened twenty years ago.

    Kudos to you, America.

    Now can we all stop the trash-talking please?

    • Posted By: star3 @ 09/07/2008 11:38:53 PM

      Vigil, bless you, dear, you're a nice person, but, unfortunately, not a realist; wish it were that easy to get people to stop bashing each other, but I'm afraid both sides are too heated up on the subject for that to happen. You're correct, though, this election will be history making.

    • Posted By: BBIinMass @ 09/07/2008 10:25:22 PM

      Obama has been vetted over the past four years - since he's been on the national political stage and has won over 18 MILLION votes from ordinary people like me. Palin has a vote of only ONE PERSON - John McCain and is an unknown politician nationally - yes, with a promising career - but VP? How can we trust McCain's decision making if he's elected? Country First? I don't think so.

      • Posted By: sharenews @ 09/07/2008 11:02:32 PM


        Right, and that is why I am not voting for him. McCain/Palin

      • Posted By: NELEGER @ 09/07/2008 10:49:54 PM

        Then you shouldn't worry about it. Let us fools vote for McCain and Mrs Sarah Palin. You go on and settle down with Obama, Jeremiah, Louis, Jesse, Al, Kwame, and all the rest of his friends. Have a good life. Enjoy hating white people, and arabs, and orientals, and hispanics, and darker skinned, and lighter skinned, and republicans, and all the others that are not like you.
        We love all of America, in spite of people like you.

    • Posted By: lisaooo @ 09/07/2008 10:01:52 PM

      That is a nice philosophy but these are huuuuge stakes. We can't just be excited because we are making history. Our first woman in office, just like our first African-American, should still be uber qualified. I just think we can and now should have the audacity to ask for the best and the brightest to lead our land. This could apply to Obama or to Palin or to McCain, whatever your philosophy or view of it all. We, the American people, need to demand more than conventions where all that happens are insults (albeit occasionally clever) and divisiveness. Can't we get issues, can't we get intelligent conversation, can't we figure out who is the most qualified. I'm tired of talking about who is the most American/patriotic and who is the most "like us" or rallying around Palin just because she is tough or strong or neat or has 5 kids or is a woman. Let's talk about if she can actually handle the multi-faceted nature of the VP job. I don't believe she is actually a reformer (take a look at her record) or a fiscal conservative (take a look at her record) or Ms. Anti-Corruption (take a look at her record), but even if she was, running this country might be 1% about that or even 10% but it is FAR from all about that. If we were the Board of Directors of Wallmart, we wouldn't hire a CEO that was good at just one thing. We'd want the whole package, especially considering all that is at stakes, and considering all of the candidates out there.

  • Posted By: Perusing-through @ 09/06/2008 10:49:11 PM

    "McCAIN / PALIN / GOP" HYPOCRISY: THE "EXPERIENCE" LIES

    After Senator Obama spent 18-months running a campaign that has totaled $350-million; and after 3-years in the Senate negotiating legislations for the nation and for his 12.8-million Illinois constituents; and after 8-years in Illinois State Senate fighting for the middle-class; and after 3 more years fighting as a community activist and organizer; it is genuinely hypocritical for McCain to pound Obama on the experience factor, and then turn around and install Sarah Palin with NO national and foreign experience, to be a single heartbeat from Commander-in-Chief of the United States. This is GARGANTUAN HYPOCRISY and a RECKLESS decision that puts the nation at risk just so McCain can fulfill his long sought after ambition to be POTUS.

    • Posted By: loriw @ 09/06/2008 11:07:01 PM

      Palin's budget for the state of Alaska is well over a BILLION dollars. Obama has never answered to anyone but himself during the campaign but Palin answers to the TAXPAYERS who have given her a 76 % approval rating but it has been as high as 90%.
      Obama during his stellar LEGISLATIVE career has voted PRESENT more than "aye" or "nay" and voted against the Born ALIVE Infant Protection Act so that babies that are born ALIVE would be left to die with out medical care. Obama "tell me words don't matter" stated that he felt it was "too burdensome" to require abortionists to make a PHONE CALL to another doctor to provide compassionate care for the baby.
      That kind of experience in a candidate I can live without. Do a search on Jill Staneck...she's the nurse that cared for the down's baby that was left in a utility room to die after surviving the abortion. She blew the whistle on Christ Hospital and testified before Obama on this issue more than once. Obama refused to recognize these infants, some of whom were viable, as babies due human rights to care. Obama was the ONLY Senator to vote AGAINST the BAIPA. Why does Obama care so little for these babies....because they CAN'T VOTE but Obama knows that abortionist and mothers that abort thier babies can. Go figure...

      • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 09/07/2008 11:00:49 AM

        http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp

        • Posted By: BBIinMass @ 09/07/2008 11:35:57 PM

          18 million people have voted for Obama during the primaries - he's been on the national scene for four years now. Palin is on the national scene for a WEEK and only one person has voted for her so far - John McCain. This is for the VP slot! Hello?? This person needs to be vetted! How reckless of McCain to make a decision like this - how can we trust him about matters of war and peace?

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 09/07/2008 3:24:49 AM


      A followup posting to what Loriw posted below:


      Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act
      4-2-2008
      by Jill Stanek

      Article: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm

      Even all of the pro-abortion orgs did not object to this humane bill which finally did pass in Illinois once Obama left office.


      Here is another (MUST READ) related article by Jill Stanek:

      http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/newpage36.htm

  • Posted By: kittykat9 @ 09/07/2008 6:53:45 PM

    Mean while back to Sarah and John and the landslide that will happen, and the demo's are scrambling. Obama will lead us on a road to no where and o biden will be distracted by his drop dead gorgeous wife. And when the 3am call comes Obama will go hide behind the sofa

    • Posted By: neos @ 09/07/2008 7:08:16 PM

      To steal Cleobeo's earlier post. Would any of you proud Republicans please share with us Democrats just what policies of the last 8 years you are proud of and would want to see continued for another 4 years?

      • Posted By: SEA Observer @ 09/07/2008 7:12:29 PM

        I will try for one: It's the tough stance on terrorism that kept this country safe for the last 8yrs and kept you safe enough to sit here today expressing your opinions, is that enough?

        • Posted By: neos @ 09/07/2008 7:22:43 PM

          Yes, that is one good point. Thank you for discussing an issue. I would add that Bush's misadventure into Iraq was a huge mistake which has gained us many new enemies and has transformed Al Qeada from a fringe group of radicals into a large international movement But, homeland security has been a major success and I am sure will continue to be under whoever becomes our next president.

          • Posted By: SEA Observer @ 09/07/2008 7:34:33 PM

            I would counter that our enemies has always been there, only that we did not see them. Time will tell who's right and who's wrong on the Iraq call. Remember Vietnam? American pulled out in shame and defeat, only to learn that it was the wrong move! The left claimed victory when the US pulled out, then turned their back on millions of dead and suffering Vietnamese/Cambodian! Who's wrong and who's right, Neos??? I am glad that, so far, Bush has enough gut not to repeat the same mistake and not letting the same mistake happen again with the Iraqis.

            • Posted By: neos @ 09/07/2008 7:51:57 PM

              No, sorry, but time has already given a verdict on Iraq.
              There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Al Qaead hated Saddam as much as if not more than George Bush. Saddam's security forces routinely rounded up and eliminated Fundamentalist terrorists as a danger to his Bath socialist party.
              There were no WMD.
              Saddam was a petty second-rate bloodthirsty tyrant, but he has lots of company on this planet. To many oversea, Bush is seen to be just as bloodthirsty dut to his intervention in Iraq.
              Our 'premptive' invasion of a independent nation was a smear on our nation's history.
              Our standing in the international community has taken a severe beating. I understand the ultra-right could not care less about our international neighbors, but at least Condi and Bush 1 have a clue on this one.

              • Posted By: SEA Observer @ 09/07/2008 8:05:28 PM

                Same thing has been said about Vietnam! will see who's right. As for our standing in the international communities, as usual, there is a minority with very loud mouth and that's what you have been hearing. I have relatives/friends from Europe to Australia and let me tell you, the truth is far from what you read or see on the news, Neos!

                • Posted By: neos @ 09/07/2008 11:34:15 PM

                  Kind of a late reply to this thread, but i lived in Europe for over nine years and in Asia for four. No it is no illusion, they are really, REALLY troubled by the current administration. And it is not a minority by any stretch of the imagination. The good news is that they do try to make a distinction between the individual American and our politicians. But, still they are quick to point out that we kept voting Bush and crew in. We have fences to mend. Alliances to strengthen. We were stubborn on iraq and insulted our allies and tried to bully into following our mistake. they were right on this one. And as Joe biden is fond of saying, 'and john McCain was wrong.' They are clearly eager to renew old frienships, particularly with a clear-thinking president, hence Obama's wonderful reception.

    • Posted By: MO_Mom @ 09/07/2008 7:14:33 PM

      Why does everyone forget that Sept.11 happened on the Republican's watch? If they are going to attack again. I don' t really think they are going to care who is in charge. Besides, GWB froze when it happened, whether anyone wants to accept it or not and I don't believe whoever is elected would actually do that again.

      • Posted By: SEA Observer @ 09/07/2008 7:28:40 PM

        Momom, that's a little short sighted. The terrorist attacked culminated long before Bush became president. Don't be in denial because your president (Clinton) failed! If America is to be successful, this blame game need to stop and American really need to try to see beyond their noses!

        • Posted By: MO_Mom_of_2 @ 09/07/2008 7:57:10 PM

          Who said Clinton was my President? Because I said GWB froze? That is documented, not just by that movie. This is the problem with Washington and the voters - selective memory. Yes, it was probably planned during Clinton's Presidency, but the Clinton administration also said that they warned the Bush people about the threat before they left.

          • Posted By: SEA Observer @ 09/07/2008 8:09:00 PM

            Sorry, I should not assumed! Regardless, terrorist movement really started during the Carter's administration.... it just take them long enough to strike during the Bush's. So let's not blame everything on Bush is my whole point!

    • Posted By: MO_Mom @ 09/07/2008 7:24:16 PM

      Why does everyone forget that Sept.11 happened on the Republican's watch? If they are going to attack again. I don' t really think they are going to care who is in charge. Besides, GWB froze when it happened, whether anyone wants to accept it or not and I don't believe whoever is elected would actually do that again.

  • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/07/2008 11:03:01 PM

    I was watching the 2006 Alaska Governors Debate today on C-Span; Sarah Palin when addressing stem cel research, said she would rather the 400,000-500,000 embryos to be thrown out like garbage than used for research. She said research destroys them, thus destroying the sancity of life, but wouldn't explain how throwing them out as trash didn't destroy the sanctity of life. It's this whole religious principled stuff that makes me confident that she just wont sell when exposed to middle of the road voters, and its the reason why the campaign won't let her do interviews or talk without a script.

    Whatever your voting plans, help me out on these questions: How is it better to throw embryos out as garbage than to use them for research that could help sick people? How is one morally superior to the other? Don't they both destroy the sanctity of life?

    • Posted By: Omaar @ 09/07/2008 11:30:52 PM

      John Mccain: On Abortion

      Note: No Time Limits, plus McCain's Wife Cindy, Believes in this as well. Katic Couric got her own Words, this past week.
      -------------------

      1. Rape: No Time Limits

      2. Incest: No Time Limits

      3. Threatens The Mothers Life: No Time Limits !!

      -----------------------

      Threats on the Life of the Mother is Hog wash...The Easy Way Out !!!

      Had'nt McCain heard the term (Ceasarian Section) whereby the Mother & Child could in Fact Live...Hmmmm
      ---------------------------------
      Cindy owns a Property that has an Abortion Clinic, that Performs ABORTIONS !!!

      ----------------------------

      Your Saint of a President, George W. Bush Jr. is a Pro-Choice President..

      For Nearly 7 1/2 Years, You So Called Pro Lifers had No Quarm about what happened to Fetuses or Bush Jr. also being a Pro-Choice President, The Republican Party has passed Bush Jr. off as a "Pro-Lifer, when he has Never been !!!

      Surprise, Surprise !!!

      You Hypocritical Low Lifes !!

  • Posted By: Marcus CA @ 09/07/2008 7:18:05 PM

    If it seems like the media is putting out a disproportionate amount of negative info about Gov. Palin, it is because the McCain campaign and the Republican Party have probably put out most of the positive info already. After all, that is their job. The media's job is to give the public news, with an emphasis on "new." For example, Gov. Palin made news by telling us the positive story about the official plane that she sold off, and the media made negative news that she sold it at a loss, rather than at a profit, as she had claimed in her acceptance speech.

    • Posted By: BBIinMass @ 09/07/2008 11:29:23 PM

      And who was lying about it?

  • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/07/2008 11:26:19 PM

    Just a little bit of perspective and irony for all of you here:

    Jesus Christ was a community organizer; Pontius Pilate was a governor.

    Makes ya think.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse