And here is the follow-up report. The CNN anchor doesn't explicitly say where he got Rev Wright's name from, but it's pretty clear that it can only have been the McCain campaign. So the McCain campaign is, in fact, trying to use the Wright issue.

Didn't work for Hillary in the spring, not likely to work today.

Just so we're clear:
CNN was able to confirm that Michael Goldfarb was thinking about Rev Wright in the clip that David Bernstein cites.
No-one but Michael Goldfarb is in a position to definitively confirm what Michael Goldfarb was thinking.
The title of this post should read "McCain fails to keep his pledge on Rev Wright".

BABH,

"Didn't work for Hillary in the spring, not likely to work today."

It worked all too well. It was just too late. Let's hope it is again.

RPT:

I agree. His evident behavior does not speak well of him. But unfortunately in this modern day marriage vows seem to matter little to people. They attach and detach pretty casually. Once we introduced "no fault" divorce, we virtually trivialized marriage. You can thank the feminists for that. They lobbied the CA legislature heavily in the 1970s and the rest is history. Now same sex marriage will take that forward another notch. McCain joins a big line of politicians like Kennedy, Hart etc.

"... don't care what the polls show - this country will never have a black president."

Why would people lie to pollsters about their intention to vote for McCain? Other blacks have been elected and the polls seem to match the income. Is the presidential race somehow different? Does it induce lying?

It should be pointed out that Khalidi isn't anti-semitic either.

What a wonderful country.
Being black gives you cover for being a butthead with a vicious, anti-American, anti-white, likely anti-Jewish attitude expressed publicly and repeatedly.
Talking about it makes you "racist" not because of the subject, but because Wright is black.
Other than being a handy schtick, and, lamentably, still able to cause self-censorship, does anybody really believe that going after Wright's nonsense is RACIST?

Enough people have agreed to pretend that certain things are racist in order to stifle discussion that some of those who would like to address an issue will shut themselves up because they think, mistakenly, that some people actually believe that crap.
Too bad.
Nobody does.
It's a manipulative scam, and the scammers know it quite well. Can't wait until it wears out.

Playing the race card is pure Saul Alinsky. His Rule 12:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Obama learned this from the master himself. Thus the personal attacks on Palin and "Joe the Plumber." In today's America the ultimate personal attack is to label someone a racist. James Watson was swiftly punished for his transgression. The charge of racism has become the greatest of all crimes and we have now terrified the population. Look at what has happened to Europe. Here is perfect example of race card playing. Palin is accused of racism on something that has nothing to do with race. Douglas Daniel from AP simply asserts the existence of a "racial subtext." This should worry the Obamabots who have a shred of intelligence and integrity left in them.

This tactic is used regularly on this blog. For example jojo writes,

... while there are reasons to be suspicious of Bernstein's attitudes toward Blacks, including his willingness to share a platform with racists on an internet forum and extreme hostility to Obama...

It's time to meet this beast head on and crush it.

"...extreme hostility to Israel, I haven't seen any hard evidence that he's ever publicly crossed the line into anti-Semitism."

What about Alan Dershowitz's "3-D" definition of anti-semitism? Let's see if I can remember it correctly. I think it's, "Demonization, De-legitimization, Double-standard".

By that definition, Wright is way over the line.

Erm, Zarkov , I reproduced DB's words.

Glad to see you find this type of argument shameful.

Maybe because he is Navy, and he knows this:

So what. Wright' later behaviour should mitigate his earlier service.

For those of you not familiar with the current pentecostal/charismatic/evangelical church, the Rev. Wright's theology and teachings that countries may be viewed as sinful and are punished by God in return is conventional. The only difference is that Wright has focused on racism, while others have focused on abortion, gay marriage,materialism, and so on. See Robertson, Hagee, Engle, Parsley, and many others. Hagee and Parsley are quite similar.

JosephSlater,
I wish I could believe that. I truly do. Only the next couple days will show if that Zogby was a one-off or if the race is truly shifting significantly towards McCain.

McCain doesn't want to play the "scary preacher" card vs. Obama.

Everyone saw Obama's scary preacher back in the primaries.

How many people IN THE MASS MEDIA AUDIENCE have seen Palin's scary preachers? Much of which is on tape, and probably in commercials pre-cut by Obama 2008, ready to air?

Of course McCain doesn't want to go there ... not before Monday night, anyway.

First, to Angus:

Two other polls so far this morning: Rasmussen, O +5, a gain of 1 point since yesterday. Dieago-Hotline, 0 +7, unchanged from yesterday. Or to quote the guy at pollster.com: "no good news for those looking for a late shift to McCain."

Even worse news for McCain in state polls.

Of course, folks who want Obama to win and are concerned should go out and do some volunteer work, if they can.

Second, what Anderson said. It's not as if McCain not mentioning Wright means people don't know about him. Fox brings him up regularly, as does talk radio, and other conservative media sources. Hillary broadcast it during the primaries. The "liberal MSM" therefore has dutifully reported it. And, from what I've heard, some 527s are set to go with it in the closing days. Frankly, I hope the do. Obama increased his lead when the McCain campaign, Fox News, and those who regurgitate their talking points, were going on about Ayers 24/7.

Bruce_M:

"Plus, the bottom line is that America does not like change."

I think that's true about everyone, not just Americans. Change involves risk, and why take a risk unless you're suffering? Americans voted for a lot of change with the New Deal. If we weren't heading into a recession, I don't think Obama would win.

WB (mail):
Wright is a Korean War vet. I think that's the reason.

That would indeed be a miracle:

Jeremiah Alvesta Wright, Jr. (born September 22, 1941)

More good news for worried Obama supporters. Gallup 11/01 shows both solid leads for Obama in all models, and the only movement is in his favor:

Registered voters:
O52
M41

Likely voters (extended)
O52
M41 (-1)

Likely voters (traditional)
O52 (+1)
M42 (-1)

But we can name quite a few people of color we'd vote for in a heartbeat.

Lacking any information about him but his demeanor, I had a positive opinion of him. Long before he confirmed his unsuitability for the presidency by endorsing Obama, I was glad I had no opportunity to invest in him as it became clear I'd have had to eschew that investment.

Yours, TDP, ml, ms, &pfpp

"Unlike Obama, when McCain says something he generally means it &sticks to it. It's called "honor." "

McCain's campaign has been a lot of things, but "honorable" is not one of them.

Perhaps you forgot that McCain once promised not to use negative ads in his campaign. Now his campaign ads are all negative.

If McCain were honorable, he'd try to make a case for his own policies. Unfortunately, his policies are indistinguishable from Bush's policies, and people are sick to death of Bush. So the only tactic McCain has left is to attack Obama.

Honorable? Please...

Listening to--with constant public admiration--and underwriting a racist lunatic like Wright for twenty years would disqualify you for public office in a serious country. That goes double if you'd try and claim, with a straight face, that the twenty years you were there you just happened to miss all the angry Sundays.

I have no earthly idea why McCain wouldn't have used this as Exhibit A in his anti-Obama campaign. I'd say he was afraid of the media painting him as a racist, but they did that anyway.

Mahan, where is the claim here:


"Obama learned this from the master himself. Thus the personal attacks on Palin and "Joe the Plumber."



That Obama personally made the personal attacks on Joe the Plumber or Palin?

Because it's a total non sequitur otherwise.

Because it's a total non sequitur otherwise.

Not at all. It is simply not a reading of the two sentences which they demand, neither is it required that Obama make the personal attacks personally for him to approve of them privately and benefit from them in public.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

Why aren't McCain's 527s going after Wright? I never expected McCain to do it himself.

1. No sane person wants to put himself in the position of having won office in a racial campaign. (Nixon wasn't sane.)

2. Possibly McCain thinks Obama's fairly strong repudiation of Wright defused the issue. (I don't think Obama has in fact shown he isn't tarred with Wrightism, but I think a case could be made that many people would accept Obama's stance.)

3. Even if he was tempted, he noticed the revelations didn't get much traction. Why didn't they? I dunno. Why haven't the Palin exorcism tapes raised serious doubts about her sanity? I dunno.)

Why haven't the Palin exorcism tapes raised serious doubts about her sanity?

Because unlike Obama, there is no evidence her personal religiosity has informed her public policy. Likewise, no distinction can rationally be made between an exorcism and the eucharist--a common insanity is not less insane and "Spread the wealth" is quite in keeping with liberation theology.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

"What evidence do you require to accept the existence of gravity?"

Things falling down? Planets in orbit? Physics is not a faith-based endeavor you know.

Anyway, it appears the answer to my question is "none".

Anyway, it appears the answer to my question is "none".

Oh? Nevermind that you question was pointless, an attempt to distract from the obvious?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

No Mahan, that not evidence her religiosity informed her policy. To do that, you would have to show there was in fact some religious commandment which she acted in obdience to that there should be a pipleine.

Of course no such thing exists.

Your objection, applying to all person who are religious, is a call for the disenfranchisement of the religious altogether, a denial on your part that no religious test should be imposed.

"But really, all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

This is a statement that she can do everything areligiously with respect to public policy, and her faith is that it means nothing if "people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God".

There is nothing in it of admixing the particular aspects of her religion in her public policy.

Similarly, to pray that ones actions are in keeping with God's will, is not the same as claiming that what one is doing is God's will. I suspect you will claim the distinction escapes you.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

Here's the exact quote re the pipeline:

"What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys as you go out throughout Alaska -- I can do my part in doing things like working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline." Palin said. "Pray about that also. I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that. But I can do my job there, in developing our natural resources, and doing things like getting the roads paved, making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded.

"But really, all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's hearts isn't right with God. And that's going to be your job," she said. "As I'm doing my job, let's strike this deal. Your job is going to be: to be out there, reaching the people, (the) hurting people throughout Alaska, and we can work together to make sure God's will be done here.""

Here's the exact quote from a debate in which Palin was asked whether creationism should be taught in public schools:

“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information.

Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.

And, you know, I say this, too, as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution.

It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”

Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information.

And in the marketplace of ideas, you seem to be afraid enough of the creation story you want to exclude it's being mentioned, even in comparison. That's says a more negative thing about you than it does Palin.

You can try to spin it any way you want, but the quote makes is unambiguously clear that Palin thinks it is God's will to build a pipeline.

Which stills fails to show how it is a religious expression or any breach of the anti-establishment clause that Palin successfully negotiated the pipeline contract which had been stalled for years by, primarily, the insistence of big oil that the terms of the contract be too cozy for them.

Palin stiffed them to the good of the people of Alaska, which was her job as governor--part of why her approval rating went as high as 80%.

Your objections are still indistinguishable from you claiming religious people should not be allowed in elective office no matter how good a job they do from a purely secular standpoint, because they might say they are coincidentally doing God's will. The people of Alaska should rather the gas stay in the ground or be flared off instead?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

Mahan, this sentence is too strong:

Your objections are still indistinguishable from you claiming religious people should not be allowed in elective office no matter how good a job they do from a purely secular standpoint, because they might say they are coincidentally doing God's will.

Instead, I should only claim you find it to be objectionable that religious person be elected to public office and do a good job from a purely secular standpoint, because they might coincidentally express that they are doing God's will.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

Of course, then you would have no problem with schools teaching astrology as science and as a accurate predictor of the future, because it's all just a part of the marketplace of ideas.

Actually while it may have been Sociology instead of Earth Science, astrology was mentioned in one of my middle school classes, and certainly so in Earth Science so was spontaneous generation and phlogiston. It reinforced as opposed to weakened my understanding and appreciation of science, and I think that was most student's experience as well.

The thing is, creation is self-evidently not
"aan accurate predictor of the futurepast" as is science, so you need have no fear of it taking over.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

As for my fear of creationism taking over, they are in fact well grounded fears, as many school boards, particularly in the south, want creationism taught as the truth, or at least along side evolution, as though the two are equal in status.

They are not well grounded fears, because they are not equally well grounded. Creationism can be taught as truth, and if the science of it is so much as mentioned in comparison to actual science, it will not persist.

You seem to fear the truth will not win out, and I have no such fears.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

"And in the marketplace of ideas, you seem to be afraid enough of the creation story you want to exclude it's being mentioned, even in comparison. That's says a more negative thing about you than it does Palin."

Your ad hominems are tiring... Look, I simply don't think it's appropriate to teach religious principles in public school, particularly if you're going to put them on the same level as scientific theories.

It's a wholly unremarkable position, shared by a majority of the people in this country, in addition to the Supreme Court.

You might ask why you need to invent extreme caricatures of my arguments instead of addressing the arguments I'm actually making.

"Your objections are still indistinguishable from you claiming religious people should not be allowed in elective office no matter how good a job they do from a purely secular standpoint, because they might say they are coincidentally doing God's will."

Of course I just voted for a Christian for President...

But I'll tell you my position quite clearly: I don't care whether a politician is religious or not. However, I do object when a politician thinks their policy positions are God's will. They think they are then infallible, and there's no use for debate or questioning at that point.

"Palin errs on the side of progressive pedagogical practice (let the kids decide for themselves)..."

Yeah, that's the ticket...

Mahan,

"Yeah, that's the ticket..."

Her father was a science teacher, her mother worked in a school, as do I. I can tell you that the approach she advocated is pretty much what good teachers do on other questions and what we're encouraged to do. Given that no Creationism will be in any conceivable curriculum in this country in the forseeable future, what exactly is it that is so determinative here for you? Your opportunity to assert your moral superiority over another Christian/human being?

"I do object when a politician thinks their policy positions are God's will. They think they are then infallible, and there's no use for debate or questioning at that point."

You leave out the part she explained to Charlie Gibson and is at the heart of the belief of nearly all serious Christians I know - the inscrutability of God's Will. Or is this all about the hype on why Bush was so "incurious" and "stubborn"?

"‘To realise the relative validity of one’s convictions’, said an admirable writer of our time, ‘and yet stand for them unflinchingly is what distinguishes a civilised man from a barbarian.’"

- Isaiah Berlin

Her father was a science teacher, her mother worked in a school, as do I. I can tell you that the approach she advocated is pretty much what good teachers do on other questions and what we're encouraged to do.

Sure, and while we are at it, how about letting teachers teach "both sides" of the holocaust and include readings of holocaust deniers? Then let the students make up their own minds about whether the holocaust really happened. What's the worst that could happen apart from a substantial minority of kids growing up thinking that the Nazis were misunderstood?

Yes, I know. Godwin's law.

"Instead, I should only claim you find it to be objectionable that religious person be elected to public office and do a good job from a purely secular standpoint, because they might coincidentally express that they are doing God's will."

I've already stated that I've actually voted for a Christian for President. This obviously disproves the ludicrous charge that I don't want religious people to be elected to public office...

You might acknowledge the possibility that a politician could be religious without thinking they know what God's will is.


But yes, if anybody believes that their specific policy positions are God's will -- whether by coincidence or not -- then I have a problem with that.

Perhaps you can explain this: If someone thinks it is God's will to build a pipeline, how in the world is that person supposed to engage in a rational policy analysis of whether or not the pipeline should be built? Once God has ordained it, doesn't that pretty much moot any rational debate?

Perseus:

The last mentions of Wright were hardly back in the primaries. As I noted in my first post, Fox, talk radio, and other forms of conservative media rail about Wright all the time. People know about it, even if McCain himself doesn't say it. And Palin's public objection to not raising it ensures the "liberal" MSM talks about it too.

I agree with some who say that the McCain campaign has been unorganized and seemingly under funded in comparison to the liberal illuminati and the campaign they are running form Obama. But it’s issues like this that really bring me to respect McCain. I’m still not sure it’s going to be enough to get me to vote for him but him sticking to his word on issues like this that I think could at least provide a little ammunition for him is a very respectable thing. He’s tried bashed Obama in about every other way so we’ll forget about that.

Re: Zogby's one day polling shows McCain in the lead.

Either Matt Drudge (who first reported this very late last night) was hitting the hooch heavy, or someone else was, because that report was a garbling of what Zogby showed today. The truth is that McCain gained a pointe on his previous day's numbers (c. 43% --> c. 44%), not that McCain was up a point on Obama.
That can certainly be interpretted as good news for McCain, but you can't go very far with it: those numbers are simply a reversion to the polling numbers that prevailed (on Zogby) earlier in the week.

I've already stated that I've actually voted for a Christian for President.

But not Christian to look at his policies or statements, which affirms rather than contradicts my assertion.

The problem is that this position clearly contradicts her earlier statements (which were made before she was nominated for VP, and was hence not concerned about her political image on the national stage).

And she has been quite consistent in praying what she was doing was God's will.

And really, would you want a politician to be doing something they were sure was not God's will?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

"But not Christian to look at his policies or statements..."

What does that mean? Only Republicans can be Christians?

"I would prefer that politicians not presume to know God's will."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Governor Palin has essentially made the rather unremarkable claim that people should always seek God's will, not that she has presumed God's will. Totally unlike the Rev. Wright/Obama stuff, this is well within the bounds of American political tradition and religious tradition.

And no, the ultimate arrogance would be to substitute one's own will for God's.

Sorry, Tony, but there are plenty of people out there trying to push for the teaching of intelligent design, which is just another name for creationism. Or haven't you been paying attention? If fact, you yourself want it taught!
If you believe that teaching this and letting the students decide is 'progressive', you are soely wrong. We don't teach ptolomeic astromony and ask students to decide which science they prefer.
I have no problem with teaching intelligent design, creationism or anything else in religious classes, but in science classes, it has no place whatsoever. Except, perhaps, as an example of what science is *not*.

"Creationism can be taught as truth, and if the science of it is so much as mentioned in comparison to actual science, it will not persist."

I agree. If true, then who do so many Americans actually believe in creationism over evolution? Part of the problem is that evolution isn't taught very well in schools. But that shouldn't be an open door to allow just any other theory, no matter how fervently believed in, to the science class.

I come here to see what the other "side" is thinking and boy, you all constantly surprise me. McCain cheated on his first wife on the way to breaking his marriage vows. That isn't honorable behavior and it is NOT something that can be blamed on feminists, especially given McCain's statements of contempt towards women in other areas: Air quotes around women's health concerns in a presidential debate? Really? Well, I give McCain points for honestly conveying his contempt for my health.

A. Zarkov made a weird statement that "no fault" divorce trivialized marriage and blamed the feminists. Here is the thing, if you need to bind people into marriage and make it difficult for them to get out of it then that isn't a good sign that people are taking marriage seriously, it is a sign that people are trapped by the law. I am a feminist in a long term faith-full marriage and no-fault puts the responsibility for a good marriage on the partners to the contract. That is a good thing. Same sex marriage STRENGTHENS respect for marriage. But it will strengthen MY KIND of marriage - marriage of equals, with respect and love. The patriarchal model of marriage? I agree it isn't doing as well.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Hmmmm.

"Exactly why McCain has been so resolute in refusing to use what strikes many people as not just a legitimate issue, but a strong issue for him, is an interesting question."

Because he is --McCain--.

There's a group called GOPTrust running an anti-Wright ad so McCain can keep doing his Pontius Pilate routine.

As I noted in my first post, Fox, talk radio, and other forms of conservative media rail about Wright all the time. People know about it, even if McCain himself doesn't say it. And Palin's public objection to not raising it ensures the "liberal" MSM talks about it too.

The conservative media harping on it would help to energize the Republican base. The question is whether swing voters have paid much attention to it. I don't assume that they are as aware of it since they tend to be the least informed voters. In any case, I don't think that it's an issue this year that would move enough voters into the McCain column for him to win.

Re: But not Christian to look at his policies or statements..."

The only unChristian statement Obama (or anyone else) can make is that Jesus Christ is not God's Son, Savior. As far as I know neither Obama, nor McCain, nor Palin nor Joe Biden has stated this, so none of them are "unChristian".


Re: And really, would you want a politician to be doing something they were sure was not God's will?

I would prefer my politicians to approach the Lord with proper humility, not pronounce themselves the Right Hand of God. We should pray we are doing God's will, but never be so arrogant to be sure that we are.

Re: Totally unlike the Rev. Wright/Obama stuff, this is well within the bounds of American political tradition and religious tradition.

Rev Wright's jeremiads are very much part of the American tradition too, both on the religious Left (see: abolitionists burning the Cosntitution) and, yes, the Religious Right (Falwell and Robertson opining that we deserved 9-11 for our sins). And really now, the ancient prophets damned Israel for its sins too. That doesn't mean Wright (or Falwell either) is a true prophet, but we should remember that the "jeremiad" is called such for another Jeremiah who was not always the most pleasant genetleman to listen too.

Re: Which is really only consistent with your preferred politicians being atheists, or in the Christian tradition, religious persons who ignore their conscience. In any case, I'm sorry you had to settle on a Christian.

Your god is too little. God's mind and God's will are infinite, and no human can contain the infinite. At most we have fragments of it-- and again, humility, not arrogance is the proper attitude.

"Exactly why McCain has been so resolute in refusing to use what strikes many people as not just a legitimate issue, but a strong issue for him, is an interesting question."



Because he is --McCain--.

Well, until Saturday night, when the Wright commercials began. He was saving it for his finish.

Funny, when I saw that, I didn't think for a second that he wanted to bring up Jeremiah Wright. I figured he wanted to bring up Jesse Jackson. And then he realized that he didn't want to be sent by McCain for the next week to do Get Out the Vote work in Barrow, Alaska.

Randy R.

"So just who were these 'feminists' that forced no fault divorce upon the public?"

You are evidently not familiar with the history of no-fault divorce in California or politics of this issue.

In the 1970s California women's groups lobbied the legislature for no fault divorce, and the CA legislature listens to people who make noise. This change in the law really hurt men and many found themselves cut off from their children. Later, a single lobbyist for men made enough noise to make joint legal and physical custody the default option in a divorce. This means that absent compelling reasons to the contrary, trial judge would automatically order this type of custody arrangement. I spoke with that lobbyist for men, and he explained the situation to me. In those days, men were not active in divorce politics to an extreme. On the other hand, the women descended on the legislature in droves. As we all know, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and that has nothing to do with the sex of the legislators.

Why weren't men more active if the change in the law acted to their detriment? This question has a long answer, and I'm afraid I might bore our readers with a long post. It's a fairly complex psychological, political and sociological issue. I don't know what the situation is like today as I have been out of that business for almost 20 years. I ran an informal help line for men going through divorce and I really learned a lot about the subject. At one time I was better than most family lawyers in both the legal and psyshological aspect of divorce and custody in CA.

"If and you don't have the wherewithall to do any of that, then here's another suggestion: quite complaining."

If I sounded like I was complaining that was not my intention. I was trying to explain a complex subject in a few sentences. But I can tell you that I once researched and thought about this subject a lot, and I concluded that institution of marriage was done a lot of damage by no fault divorce. If you really want to go into this in detail then contact me off line.

Randy,

"Well, it ain't gonna happen. It's too popular. Significantly, it's too popular with religious rights people and conservative white men, which is where it really counts."

Evidence? I agree that males played/play a big role, but its more the Hugh Hefner/immature twentysomething set.

The rights of whom laws that make divorce more difficult seek to protect are the offspring of the affected marriage.

Dunno about McCain, but the RNC is running plenty of Wright ads. It's better for McCain to keep his hands clean (or appear to).

There's a group called GOPTrust running an anti-Wright ad so McCain can keep doing his Pontius Pilate routine.

Right Syd. That's so awful. Wright's really an ok America hating guy.

And Obama's just fine with him, and the feelings are mutual.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

Perseus writes, about Wright: In any case, I don't think that it's an issue this year that would move enough voters into the McCain column for him to win.

I agree with you there.

"...you plan to take away the children..."

Of course no one has suggested any such thing.


"That isn't the definition in Massachusetts, Connecticut or California...."

Illegitimate diktats from judicial activists can't bend reality.


Opposition to redefining marriage, by Mormons or anyone else, is not an example of any of your earlier assertions: "Religion is often used to say "Dont!" as in don't have sex, don't treat gays equally, don't believe in climate change, don't think that other religions have any value, don't trust liberals, and so on."

If McCain thinks he's not using the Rev Wright in this campaign, he's delusional. Hopefully he's merely dishonorable.

It's not worth attempting intelligent argument here, so I won't.

If McCain thinks he's not using the Rev Wright in this campaign, he's delusional.

I'm curious. Enlighten me.

"Editors:

Governor Palin has essentially made the rather unremarkable claim that people should always seek God's will, not that she has presumed God's will. Totally unlike the Rev. Wright/Obama stuff, this is well within the bounds of American political tradition and religious tradition."

Wright is well within the Pentecostal tradition of speaking about God's punishment for national sin. The only difference is that he focused on a different sin than others.

What I meant about Palin was not her evident belief that God cares about pipelines or her evident inability to distinguish between evidence-based science and dogmatic mysticism when it comes to biology, but her obvious and public belief that actual evil demons are flying around trying to influence her decisions -- and that she believes that they can, in principle, do so.

I also find it curious that she is trying so hard to hide the fact -- and it is a fact -- that she spent most of her life in the Assembly of God. (For those who are not familiar with AoG, and contra Perkins, they do not believe that demons are a metaphor for our worse sides or something; they believe they are actual disembodied spirits who stalk the world influencing how we behave.)

While I find the Catholic belief in transubstantiation to be intellectually as weird and unsupported as the AoG belief in real demons, when it comes to operating dangerous machinery, the two are not equivalent.

"And no one has claimed anything different."

Uh, calling two things the same word implies the two things are the same.


No, the evidence supports that children do better with a mother and a father, other things being equal.


"This is way all major adoption agencies support adoptions to gay parents."

Untrue.


So if anyone does not believe that all acts of government are by definition legitimate, then they're insane. OK then.

perkins:

neither is it required that Obama make the personal attacks personally for him to approve of them privately and benefit from them in public. … Why do you imagine it is required that his campaign make the personal attacks that have been made for him to approve of their effect?

Your exact 'logic' can be used to claim that McCain approves of this and this.

part of why her approval rating went as high as 80%

A major reason "why her approval rating went as high as 80%" was the way she decided that everyone should "share in the wealth:"

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.

It's easy to approve of someone who just handed you a big check you didn't have to work for.

because they might coincidentally express that they are doing God's will.

Our elected officials are supposed to do the will of the people, not the will of God. Confusion about this does not lead to good results.

federalist:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

It's helpful to notice how many times the Constitution mentions God: zero.

the ultimate arrogance would be to substitute one's own will for God's.

The ultimate betrayal of the Constitution would be to substitute God's will for the will of the people. If the people are guided by God, fine. But the leaders are obliged to listen to the people, not to listen to God. If they're not OK with that, then they should be in a different line of work. Or they would do fine as a government official in a place like Iran, where mixing religion and politics is considered normal.

prosec:

how much money do you think the GOP could raise if they turned all the verification mechanisms off on the McCain/Palin website?

Certain people are making a big fuss over nothing. Turning off "the verification mechanisms" just makes it easier for the donor to make a donation. The verification still happens, except at a different point in the process: when Obama conveys the transaction to the bank. This is explained very clearly here.

I don't think McCain's ever said anything this cycle as over-the-top as Obama's "When McCain says country first, it's fair to ask which country" line.

"McCain says Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election"

Only one kind of person would rather lose a war than lose an election: a traitor.

Also, maybe you don't realize that in McCain's first ad he called himself "The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For." As if the other candidate isn't exactly American. It's hard to interpret McCain's words as something other than a claim that a black person named Barack Obama isn't quite as fully "American" as John McCain.

If McCain thinks he's not using the Rev Wright in this campaign, he's delusional.

I'm curious. Enlighten me.

This was explained at the top of the thread. Watch the clip.

Yeah, I know.

They usually are proud to the point of being obnoxious about letting the rest of the world know it, too.

That's why I am so puzzled by Palin's lie to Time about her religion.

There's something about that in the Gospel of Luke, too, I think.

Anyhow, about the time she grasped for a political career, she switched from the local AoG congregation to a non-denominational church.

Nothing unusual or questionable about that. People often switch churches because they find a different congregation or pastor more appealing. What is odd about Palin is that when Time asked her about her religious faith, she pitched AoG down the memory hole and said that she had gone from being a birth Catholic to a nondenominational Christian church, with nothing in between.

If we can hold Obama to account for 20 years with Jeremiah Wright, and I think we must, then we can hold Palin to account for more than 20 years in the AoG.

"they do not believe that demons are a metaphor for our worse sides or something"

The Pew Forum On Religion and Public Life reported in February whether those polled agree or disagree with the statement "Angels and demons are active in the world." Sixty-eight percent of Americans of all faiths agreed.

Trying to demonize Sarah Palin (no pun intended) for supposedly agreeing with almost seventy percent of her fellow Americans (she has not actually addressed the question) is going to be a real stretch, as is trying to compare that belief to the racist and anti-American tirades of Obama's pastor and close friend of twenty years, Jeremiah Wright.

afj:

the Year of our Lord

How lame. See here:

Our dating system is an historical artifact of Western culture, and has no legal significance or implications for the meaning of the Constitution or the First Amendment. The American Colonies were established by Europeans; we naturally inherited the European practice of dating years from the birth of Christ. Nothing follows from this except the trivial observation that, in establishing our independence, we decided not to completely overthrow our cultural heritage.

… "The Year of our Lord" was the standard way of dating important documents in the 1700s; its use was ritualistic, not religious. It is doubtful that anyone, Christian, deist, or otherwise, would have given the words a second thought, or ascribed to them any legal significance. And if the intent of the Constitution was to signal a favored status for Christianity, it could have done so in a thousand less ambiguous ways than including the words "in the Year of our Lord." That some accommodationists appeal to these words is silent testimony to how little evidence there is for the idea that the Constitution embodies Christian morality or thought.

In other words, I think you're better off not mentioning that all you have is the date.

Sundays excepted

I guess that means we're all pagans:

In fact, the European dating system is infused with pagan holdovers that, if taken seriously, lead to exactly the opposite conclusions reached by accommodationists. We have a seven day week, after the model of ancient Israel, but we inherited Pagan names for these days; does the Constitution then establish Sun worship when it excepts Sunday from the ten days Presidents have to veto a bill before it becomes law? Does it establish worship of the Moon when it says that Congress will begin it's sessions on the first Monday of December? Does the use of European names for months mean that the Constitution establishes worship of Julius Caesar (July) or Augustus Caesar (August)? The issue was a serious one for some Christians; Quakers, for example, adopted numerical references for days and months precisely to avoid objectionable Pagan names. The rejection of the Quaker system suggests that the founders read very little into their dating practices. To base an argument on those practices is to stand on extraordinarily shaky ground.

Next up, you'll be telling us the Founders worshipped the Sun God.

the notion that people are somehow prohibited from bringing their values to the public square in America if those values are influenced by traditional religious beliefs

I love the subtle way you say "values [that] are influenced by traditional religious beliefs," instead of just saying 'religion.' Your "values" are welcome in the "public square." Your religion is not.

that's been the position of the Democrats

You might want to consider the possibility that sincere, patriotic people could define terms like 'win' and 'lose' somewhat differently than you. But I don't think you will.

Angels and demons are active in the world

That statement can be interpreted metaphorically. But that's not how Murthee looks at it.

Sixty-eight percent of Americans of all faiths agreed.

40% said they "completely agree." 28% said they "mostly agree." And as far as "all faiths," you're full of it. A majority of Jews said they "completely disagree." Among evangelicals, 61% "completely agree." Among Jews, that figure is 9%.

And speaking of Jews, there's also a bit of a problem with her accepting a blessing from the witch-hunter shortly after he spoke of "the wealth of the wicked," and about "the Israelites, that's how they work. And that's how they are, even today."

Thanks Editors. You STILL ignore the question of why children of gay parents should be treated differently from the children of straight parents, and not be given the rights and benefits of married parents. Nor have you provided any proof that children of gay parents do any worse or better than children of straight parents.

As for Catholic Charities, it's quite odd that you quoted them, because until Massachusetts allowed gay marriage, CC of Boston actually placed adoptive children into gay households. That was their policy. Why would they do that if they thought the children wouldn't do well?

It was only AFTER gay marriage was granted by the Mass Supreme Court that they decided not to place them into gay households. Strange behavior, don't you think?

fury:

That may be your belief, but you're representing that as a fact.

If I send every man, woman and child in my state a chcck for $3,269, that is going to influence them to approve of me. I consider this sufficiently self-evident to treat it as a fact.

Using the definition above, Alaska does not control the means of production or capital in regards to oil.

Wrong. The definition you cite says this:

the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc

In Palin's Alaska, there is land that is owned "collectively" (her exact word). And that land is used to produced profits that are shared with every person in the state. Including all the people who did precisely no work whatsoever to produce those profits. Palin said it's good that everyone should "share in the wealth." How is this not socialism?

I'd prefer that folks not use socialism in their arguments, unless they can give some context for such arguments. Otherwise, you end with the comments that Palin made, and the comments that the author of your link makes. Weak...

The point being made by the author is that it's ridiculous to call Obama a socialist. Because if Obama is a socialist, then Palin is one too.

jukeboxgrad:

"If I send every man, woman and child in my state a chcck for $3,269, that is going to influence them to approve of me. I consider this sufficiently self-evident to treat it as a fact."

Again, you're not accurate. Not every man, woman and child in the state gets a check. See here.

You can call it what you like, but you have no polling data, etc, to back up your assertion. It may seem self-evident to you, but many people vote use a thoughtful consideration of the candidates and the issues, regardless of $. When you, I , or anyone making broad, sweeping generalizations and represent them as fact, that's unfortunate and intellectually lazy.

Regarding socialism, I take the OED definition to be all inclusive - all those items must be met for socialism to exist. Land is but one of the items mentioned.

The point being made by the author is that it's ridiculous to call Obama a socialist. Because if Obama is a socialist, then Palin is one too.

Agreed, see here.

fury:

Not every man, woman and child in the state gets a check. See here.

I fail to see where that link contradicts what I said. Please cite the exact text.

many people vote use a thoughtful consideration of the candidates and the issues, regardless of $

It's not about a "vote." It's a survey of public approval.

I take the OED definition to be all inclusive - all those items must be met for socialism to exist.

This is hairsplitting. Obviously it's a matter of degree.

Yeah, but the ones who don't get checks don't vote either.

Fury:

That isn't the full story. Later on in that same page:

"I was convicted of a felony, but have served my time and am on probation. Can I register to vote?

No. A convicted felon may not register to vote unless unconditionally discharged from custody. When you are no longer on probation, a copy of your discharge papers will allow you to register."

And further:

http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php

Article V, section 2:

No person may vote who has been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude unless his civil rights have been restored. No person may vote who has been judicially determined to be of unsound mind unless the disability has been removed.

Checked my own math. Actually, the increase in the Permanent Fund checks from 2005 to 2006 was approximately 31%. But I stand by my larger point.

fury:

Not everyone in Alaska will get a check

You have a talent for focusing on the immaterial. Fine, felons don't get checks. So sue me.

By the way, here's another reason to claim that "not everyone in Alaska will get a check:" if I'm driving through Alaska on my way to see Santa, I also won't get a check. Because I'm not a resident. But I'm actually "in Alaska." So that falsifies the claim. Why didn't you mention that exception?

Likewise for illegal aliens. But resident aliens do get the check.

JBG,

It is quite apparent you lack even a modicum of honesty. You cite 2008 numbers--my point was 2007--indeed, the numbers YOU cite are JANUARY, 2008 with 82%.

So her popularity was very high WAY BEFORE this year's dividend check.

dave:

I corrected myself 31% vs. 40% before you did.

Oops, my mistake. I didn't notice that.

So her popularity was very high WAY BEFORE this year's dividend check.

Yes, it was already high. I never denied that. But you seemed to be implying that her ratings weren't high at the time the 2008 check was announced, and that's wrong. You said this:

the height of Palin's popularity was in 2007, BEFORE the 2008 dividend checks

And you cited wiki, and the article mentioned that her rating was 68% in 9/08. But that's misleading, because you have to look at the original report to see that the number was much higher just a month earlier.

You seemed to be saying her ratings were high in 2007, but not in 2008. That's not exactly true. Yes, her ratings were highest (about 90%) right after she took office. But it's natural to expect that to drop. No one has ratings that stay that high. My point is that both checks (2007 and 2008) helped keep her ratings high (around 80%) for longer than you would otherwise expect.

The 2007 check ($1,654) wasn't too shabby, either. That was a 50% increase over the previous year. Let's review the recent amounts:

2005: $846
2006: $1107
2007: $1654
2008: $3269

She entered office on 12/06. The annual check is paid in September. Look at the way she boosted those amounts. 2008 is a record. No surprise that she was getting huge ratings, all through 2007 and 2008, until 9/08 when Troopergate hit.

the numbers YOU cite are JANUARY, 2008 with 82%

Indeed. And that was four months after everyone got $1654, which was a 50% boost from the prior year.

Palin said she was happy that everyone can "share in the wealth." If you keep sending people more and more money, that they didn't have to work for, of course they're going to approve of you. Even though it means you're a socialist.