GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Thus far, Barack Obama has managed to cast himself as a potential post-racial healer-in-chief. But, I daresay that image is on the verge of utter catastrophe. A clip of one of the sermons of Obama’s pastor is making its way around the wires today; and it is vile.
Go*d*mn America? The US of KKKA? 9/11 indicated that “America’s Chickens are coming home”? Really? Now of course, I’m one of those black Republicans that “lives below the sea level”, so undoubtedly I’m incapable making rational assessments here, but it seems to me that Barack Obama, by virtue of his long attendance at this hateful church, has utterly torpedoed his general election viability.
I was a Romney supporter, so I’m pretty inclined to give people leeway on religious beliefs. I don’t care if you worship a great bowl of cheerios, provided that you show yourself to be a rational person in other capacities, and are able to detach yourself, to some extent, from these beliefs when making decisions. But, this isn’t “odd” doctrine. It’s visceral, hateful, racist, anti-Americanism. And it’s being preached by a man that Obama has proudly called a “mentor”, and in a church that Barack has called home for two decades.
Thus, Obama cannot distance himself by the tepid “I don’t agree with everything he says” rejoinders. In fact, I doubt very much he can plausibly distance himself at all. Anyone who’s ever attended a church service, and certainly anyone who’s ever taken their faith seriously, understands that such rejoinders are on their face absurd.
I’ve been attending a slightly “progressive” church for nearly a year now. And I’ve occasionally boycotted the church, because I felt the pastor spent too much time focusing on the need to “give away all your money”. So it’s beyond fathoming that someone could willingly and repeatedly attend a church where such consistent vitriol was spewed and not, on some level, sympathize with the arguments being made.
For all you white Americans out there, how long would you attend a church where the pastor repeatedly said things like “this country’s being taken over by s*ics and n*g*ers and is now damned”? And if you were a frequent congregant (20 years frequent), what sort of conclusions could we reasonably draw about your viewpoints?
Obama claims that he admires Wright because of his past focus on divestment from South Africa. Terrific. Thousands of preachers took this stand, either publicly or privately. Very few of them felt the need to supplement this position with hate-mongering. One wonders what Obama felt he was getting from Jeremiah Wright, that he couldn’t have found in less “incendiary”, more “inviting” congregations.
I pray I still live in an America where this will not fly- where a candidate cannot simultaneously claim to embody post-racial, feel good, America uniting change, while attending a black nationalist, America hating church for 20 years. I suspect that I do. I think that if the Democratic party doesn’t blink, and abandon this disaster of a candidate, we’re going to win 40 states in November.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I knew this 13 months ago and said then that he would never be President.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I dunno. Would every Catholic be held accountable for things the pope says? I know he’s never gone this overboard, but if he did, I can’t say that it would disqualify all Catholics from office.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I don’t see how he can win with these associations and attitudes toward our country, but many voters are downright stupid, do minimum research, and can’t wait to jump on a badwagon like Obama’s, so who knows. He scares the heck out of me.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Put differently, how is this different from examining the Mormon church’s relatively recent refusal to accept African Americans, or any number of other teachings that most people (rightly) refused to accept.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Sorry, meant “inspect” instead of “accept.” Way different meaning.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I am dissapointed that Mr. Oxendine seems to be less than horrified at this connection. Mr. Oxendine compares this to the Mormon church’s somewhat recent racial problems. Well, I suppose the real equivalent would be if Mr. Romney’s mentor, personal pastor and spiritual advisor believed blacks are inferior and that America is damned due to its persecution of the Mormon Church and polygamy. Think Romney would have even been able to run with that in his personal life? Perhaps Mr. Oxendine fails to grasp the situation; we do not hold people accountable for what everyone in their religion says or does, but we do hold them accountable for the beliefs of their closest chosen allies and advisors.
On another note, it is somewhat funny that the media is so far to the left that they fail to vet leftist candidates properly. It seems like an advatage to Dems but it really is not, as the party ends up nominating terrible candidates like Kerry and Obama who get beaten up in the general due to their skeletons.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
They will just play it next to the Minister’s (and the anti-catholic ranting) of John McCain’s endorser.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I’m guessing this video won’t play well in Red or Purple America.
Now I’m sure that there are some latte liberals (who would never think of stepping foot in a black neighborhood, mind you) who will pride themselves for being “diverse” enough to support a candidate who is complicit in this garbage. You know, the ones who find smug comfort in the idea that everyone ELSE who looks like them is evil.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Hey,you guys. My advice - don’t touch this stuff. We have much bigger fish to fry than going into all the anti again.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Casey,
There is a big difference between the theology of some guy who endorses you, and the theology of the church you choose to attend. McCain (and the Democrat nominee) will obviously be endorsed by all kinds of people with mutually exclusive beliefs, including anti-Catholic protestants, and anti-Protestant Catholics. The difference here is that this is Barrack’s CHOSEN church, his spiritual home of 20 years, and the man he identified as his “MENTOR.”
March 13th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Robin,
This isn’t some ad hominem hit piece. I’m geniunely concerned that Barrack believes this crap.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
It appears that a fundamental part of Obama’s Church is hating white people and hating the United States. I wonder why Obama has stayed there for 20 years if he disagrees.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Thank you MSW. It is concerning that (assumedly) iintelligent folks can’t understand the difference between some crazy endorsing a candidate and a CHOSEN spiritual advisor who inspires the names of your books and is the pastor at your wedding. This should scare the crap out of any informed voter.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Notice this is stuff they gleaned from only “over a dozen sermons for sale…”
A dozen sermons!!!
Imagine all the hate Obama must have soaked up in 20 years.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I’ve got Obama’s new bumper sticker:
KILL WHITEY!
Obama ‘08.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
This kind of crap that says God hates America is that same logic that Fred Phelps uses.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
6. I understand the distinction, but it is a distinction without a meaningful difference. The distinction between someone who is a member of a particular church with ugly beliefs and someone who maintains membership in a denomination with ugly beliefs really doesn’t move me that much.
I’m far more concerned by Obama’s actual, stated political beliefs than the clips of his whackjob minister.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Sean,
“I’m far more concerned by Obama’s actual, stated political beliefs than the clips of his whackjob minister.”
Good luck getting a presidential contender to be that candid. In the absence of such candor, we must glean what we can from the associations he has PERSONALLY, WILLFULLY, and ENTHUSIASTICALLY embraced. Remember, we are discussing the finer points of eschatology or exegesis here, we are talking about a philosophy (pathology) that forms part of the core of the man’s political philosophy.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Seriously, what would we think of a candidate who had David Duke as a spiritual mentor? Who asked David Duke to perform his wedding, and who claimed inspiration from David Duke?
March 13th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Change we can believe in.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I’d have to agree with MWS and Doug on this one.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Sean said,
“Put differently, how is this different from examining the Mormon church’s relatively recent refusal to accept African Americans, or any number of other teachings that most people (rightly) refused to accept.”
Many people misunderstand what the Mormon issue was on blacks. Blacks have always been part of the church. The issue was that blacks could not be ordained to the priesthood. They have always been loved and welcomed members of the church. Many people have misunderstood the issue.
The thing that is so troubling about Obama’s pastor is that he teaches hate. I would run away from any church that teaches hate. That is not acceptable to most Americans.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
“Many people misunderstand what the Mormon issue was on blacks. Blacks have always been part of the church. The issue was that blacks could not be ordained to the priesthood. They have always been loved and welcomed members of the church. Many people have misunderstood the issue.”
It’s still a pretty ugly part of the Mormon church’s history. I have nothing against Mormons, but it’s a bit troubling to me that those policies lasted as long as they did… FWIW, I thought Romney seemed absolutely genuine when he talked about this subject on Meet the Press earlier in the campaign.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
#23 - hunter i think you’re right. romney responded genuinely to that issue. obama doesnt seeem to care about what his pastor says, or why anyone else should care. the question is, will the media push him on that, or continue to give him a free pass. im not holding my breath…
March 13th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Sean,
I think MWS captures the point precisely, and it’s hardly a “distinction without a difference”. There is indeed a world of difference between one’s chosen mentor’s, pastor’s etc, and an endorser that you probably didn’t know from Adam a year ago. Refusal to repudiate the support of a bigoted, yet influential, crazy is typical campaign cowardice. Refusal to switch congregations at a church which isn’t simply institutionally bigoted and anti-American, but which repeatedly, and in your hearing, espouses such views goes beyond cowardice. Indeed, it’s not clear that such a decision is cowardice at all; the more logical conclusion is considerably more uncomfortable. Namely, that Barack Obama isn’t bothered by this sort rhetoric, at the least, and possibly that he agrees with some of it.
After all, he attended this church for years before he even had a political career. Nothing rested, presumably, on his attendance; he wasn’t going to jeopardize support with a core constituency. He had no constituency. He didn’t risk offending anyone by leaving the church and finding one more congenial to his uniting, hopeful viewpoints. He attended this church willingly, not only as it adopted unsavory, racist, anti-American doctrines, but as the pastor openly and repeatedly emphasized these viewpoints.
I know very little about the Mormon Church, but I doubt very much that any significant number of wards made it point to emphasize how unfit blacks were for the priesthood in the 1970’s. And I’m confident that the Romney’s would have found a different ward had this been occurring. I understand that there’s a fear in some circles of the Republican Party of bringing up anything that plausibly smacks of “the race card”. But, this stuff is inexcusable, and fair Americans everywhere will reject it, and Barack Obama, wholesale.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Between this and emerging scandals from Illinois, it appears the curtain may be coming down on Obama’s act as the post-racial Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I think a lot of folks thought they were getting Martin Luther King in Barrack Obama, a man of moral courage and principle who seeks to transcend race and the many sins committed in its name.
Turns out Barrack may be more Malcolm X than MLK. I’m getting a strong odor of hypocrisy and phoniness from the very core of the whole Obama message. Maybe the guy isn’t just a pie-in-the-sky, lightweight purveyor of platitudes. He may be a total charlatan. A fraud. These video clips put into context Michelle Obama’s comment that she was never proud of America before it fell in love with her husband. It looks like she may have been speaking a heartfelt truth, if she agrees with one of the driving tenants of her pastor’s message.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Many people misunderstand what the Mormon issue was on blacks. Blacks have always been part of the church. The issue was that blacks could not be ordained to the priesthood. They have always been loved and welcomed members of the church. Many people have misunderstood the issue.
OK. But I’m Mormon, and I would totally understand that people wouldn’t vote for Mormons for office as long as this was our practice. Luckily that changed 30 years ago. Now if Obama’s pastor had some racist, anti-American views that he’d changed his mind about 30 years ago, that would be one thing. But this is contemporary.
Also, there’s a real difference between being Catholic/Orthodox/Mormon and being protestant. Being Catholic or Orthodox or Mormon is kind of a whole package. Mostly you’re not there because you think the current leader is someone you like a lot. No one would expect you to start church hunting every time the current pope or patriarch or prophet gets replaced. But if you’re shopping for a pastor you like, which Barack Obama was, then the views of the pastor you pick and admire and stick with and praise for 20 years straight get really relevant.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Henry Heavner,
That’s another excellent point. I’m a basically non-denominational Protestant. But, I do have theological and moral views, and I “shop” for church’s accordingly. Right now, for instance, I’m attending a pretty mainline, former Baptist church, and a really youth driven more progressive church, pretty much simultaneously. I like the theology of the former, and the more vibrant tone of the latter. I’ve attended other church’s, where I felt uncomfortable, and I ultimately left, sometimes over simple doctrinal differences, occasionally over something more serious. The Protestant community is such that this is not only possible, but a natural extension of it’s historical foundations. I’ve attended some Catholic masses too, and while their are certainly differences between parishes, it’s an obviously more institutionalized setting.
Someone who’s Catholic isn’t practically expected to agree with everything the church espouses, because it’s less of a choice. Once you’ve decided to accept a few uniquely Catholic viewpoints, you don’t have very many options in terms of what sort of church you want to belong to; there’s pretty much only one show in town (even if it’s playing at slightly different theaters).
Again, this is not at all the case with Protestantism; you can find protestant churches which wholly reject the incarnation and resurrection, and you can find Protestant churches that dwell an awful lot on Leviticus. Similarly, you can find Protestant churches which reject anti-American black nationalism, and you can find Protestant churches that espouse this; even if you insist that your church care about Africa, and supported divestment from South Africa. It’s quite obvious where Obama stands here.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I agree with you Henry. When I was a child, I remember when our Pastor left and the congregation “auditioned” pastors until they found one they liked. I remember that after we got a new pastor, he often told people in the congregation that they were going to hell, and my mother, as well as a good number of other people, didn’t like it and quit going to that church. For many evangelicals and born agains, they can shop around and choose a place that fits what they believe. That is why it is so troubling that Obama has chosen to follow this leader with all of his hateful and racist speech.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
If I’m reading him right, Jim Geraghty says this was on September 16, 2001. Five days after 9-11.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
“Turns out Barrack may be more Malcolm X than MLK.”
Bah, I don’t know about that. I’ve always found Malcolm X to be, at the very least, one of the most intriguing characters in American history. Everyone should read his autobiography.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I agree with all of you that find it extremely troublesome that he has gone to that same church for all these years, when there were plenty, even within the same or close denomination that he could have chosen, without this kind of hate filled preacher. It says a lot about Obama, and its not something that will sit well with his would-be voters.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
This is CRAZY. I’m a weird mormon, so I don’t bash people’s doctrinal differences….but this is absurd. Any respect I might have secretly held for Obama personally, regardless of his political misdirection, has been abolished completely.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Hunter,
“Bah, I don’t know about that. I’ve always found Malcolm X to be, at the very least, one of the most intriguing characters in American history.”
Yes, and I find George Wallace to be “one of the most intriguing characters in American history.”
It doesn’t mean he was right, or should be President.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
George Wallace? Uh, you’ll have to explain to me exactly how that comparison is legitimate.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Hunter,
They were both race obsessed, with a less-than-charitable view of the “other” race. They viewed just about everything in politics (if not life itself) through the prism of race. Neither minded stoking racial resentment or fear, and both demonized the “other.”
Differences; Malcolm X wore glasses.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:22 am
And, frankly, they both were interesting people with crazy life stories, smoldering resentment from mistreatment, and so on. The only real difference is that George Wallace didn’t have a talented ghostwriter and didn’t get assassinated for switching from being a racist anti-American to just plain anti-American.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Rev. Wright is part of Obama’s campaign - he is a member of Obama’s African American Religious Leadership Committee.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/13/14167/3166
***********************
Seeing this video of Rev. Wright is chilling.
It also explains many things that have troubled me about Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle.
His refusal to wear a flag pin.
His refusal to hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.
His wife’s comments about her lack of pride in America and other extremely negative comments about America.
It’s all starting to make sense now.
Barack and Michelle Obama’s loyalty is certainly not with this country.
Obama referred to Rev. Wright as an uncle who says crazy things sometimes.
Well, you can’t choose who your uncle is — but you certainly can choose what church you attend.
20 years of a steady diet of this kind of vitriolic hate speech has to be at the very foundation of one’s outlook on life.
This man and his wife cannot be our president and first lady.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Another enlightening and troubling article about Rev. Wright:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=c19d4d91-618e-40d3-a5d9-c07d7a87a5ba
If Barack Obama were a quarterback for the NFL or in some other position where what he believes did not have affect America as a whole, then I would say that where he goes to church and who his pastor is would not matter that much, but this man is running for the highest office in the land — President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief.
It is extremely relevant what his church teaches - especially when the pastor is clearly not preaching and teaching Scripture, but is using his pulpit to preach his politics of hatred, socialism and class warfare.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:52 am
“Seeing this video of Rev. Wright is chilling.
It also explains many things that have troubled me about Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle.
His refusal to wear a flag pin.
His refusal to hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.
His wife’s comments about her lack of pride in America and other extremely negative comments about America.
It’s all starting to make sense now.”
________________________________________
Bingo. I wrote off each of these individually, until now. Taken as a whole, it’s impossible not to see that Obama has a clear current of anti-Americanism running through him. No amount of speeches will get me to believe otherwise. If he leaves his church and makes a big announcement about it, maybe.
Regardless, McCain is impressing me lately, and I’m slowly coming back to reality.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:55 am
The flag thing is a non issue. Too many people wear them for reasons other than patriotism. It’s like a “must have” in GOP wear. Like yellow ties a few years back. They don’t really mean anything.
I thought the hand over the heart thing was proven to be during the national anthem not the poa. It isn’t required for the national anthem.
As far as the church he went to, yes it’s deeply troubling. I thought McCain sought after the endorsements he received though, it wasn’t just some random endorsement from some crazy.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Why is everyone talking about what Obama’s pastor said and not mentioning the sexual intercourse gyration of his lower body (from the pulpit) when talking about what Bill Clinton did to blacks and Monica? Seems the sex act from the pulpit should be mentioned.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:32 am
As Beth says in #39, a pattern is starting to emerge, and it is not pretty. That is the first thing I thought of when I became aware of this new Obama problem.
Engineers have a saying, “Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.”
It is deeply troubling to me that Obama chose via his own free-will and choice to attend this particular church and this particular congregation presided over by this particular preacher for twenty years.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I think I’ve come around on this. Growing up Catholic, I’ve always been uncomfortable imputing church doctrine to all members of a congregation, especially since I’ve never been particularly comfortable with a lot of Catholic Church doctrine (which is why I attend a moderate Southern Baptist church now).
But you’re right, there’s a difference between broad church doctrine in a top-down organization like Catholicism and choosing to stay with a particular minister who says this stuff, particularly in a bottom-up organization like a charismatic Protestant faith.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:38 am
#4 Sean, I am sure that you would not want to be judged on the fact that the Southern Baptist Church broke away from the Baptist Church because the Southern Baptist church were slave owners. However, if you currently attended a church that the preacher gave sermons encouraging slaves owners, the puplic could make you accountable.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I’ve followed a similar path as you, Sean Ox — raised Catholic, but eventually left for a moderately conservative protestant church. The thing with Obama is that it is not a church he was born into, it’s one he chose, and that he has stayed with for 20 years — indicating agreement/acceptance of its primary views.
Like several others, my problem is with the overall pattern that is emerging with Obama.
Lapel pin — I shrugged when I heard it. Who cares?
Michelle’s lack of pride — a bigger problem, but candidates aren’t fully responsible for their spouse’s comments, and perhaps she didn’t mean it exactly as it came across.
Jeremiah Wright — bigger still, but excuses can be made about not buying everything your preacher says.
There are possible excuses for each thing individually. But taken together, they are troubling.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
re #42: “The flag thing is a non issue.”
I beg to differ. The flag thing WAS a non-issue. Now, combined with Michelle’s “for the first time in my life” drivel and the absolute toxic comments from Rev. Wright, the flag pin issue becomes part of a pattern, and a not very flattering one at that.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Even if Obama is only leaning the direction of his pastor, I would not want anyone who does NOT love the USA to be president. I could not trust that he would defend freedom and liberty nor have our best interst at heart.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
interest.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Obama is not responsible for his Pastor, just like McCain is not responsible for John Hagee and Hillary is not responsible for ___________ (who’s her pastor?). Anyway, it seems Americans would rather have an aethist or an adulterer for a President rather than a good family man who professes Christianity. So many of you Americans have been demonizing Muslims and have even tried to claim that Obama is one. Aren’t Muslims and zealots like John Hagee and Rod Parsley (who has called for the destruction of Islam) part of American society? How come you all behave like this and still call yourselves the “free world”?
March 14th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Obama and the Minister
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120545277093135111.html
March 14th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Rehema Ibrahim Anyango - I believe that John Hagee is not McCain’s pastor, nor is Hagee his mentor, nor has he had a close 20-year relationship with John McCain or his family and Rev. Hagee is also not part of John McCain’s campaign, as Rev. Wright currently is.
And, by the way, Mr. Anyango, if we weren’t the free world, you and the rest of us would hardly be able to express our opinions freely on this site and others.
Learn your history, Mr. Anyango. Last time I checked America and other countries with free speech allow you and others to freely express your opinion without imprisonment or consequence.
Study the history of Communist Russia and China or North Korea. Study what Iraq was like under Saddam Hussein’s rule - where a bad word spoken about Hussein in one’s private home, if reported to the officials, could result in torture and/or death.
In North Korea simply unknowingly sitting on a newspaper which has a photo of the “Dear Leader” in it, would get you and your family imprisoned and tortured.
Your comment reveals your lack of knowledge of such things. Study up and your comments will make much more sense and you will gain respect on this site and in the world around you. I say this with all due respect.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Rehema,
In addition to echoing Beth’s comments, I would add that while Obama is not responsible for his pastor’s views (that would be silly) he IS responsible for his pastor BEING HIS PASTOR.
That is the whole point……
March 14th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
#53,#54 Good points!
March 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
beth, you are so smart!!!
March 14th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Here’s a bit more, from a speech he gave at Howard University: The US created AIDS.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
March 14th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
MWS,
You hit the nail on the head. “He is responsible for his pastor being his pastor.”
March 14th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Obama “I don’t agree with my pastor on everything.”
Query “So do you agree with him on America being to blame for 9-11?”
Obama “Of course not!”
Query “So do agree with him on white people all being racists?”
Obama “Of course not!”
Query “So do you agree with him that black people should hate America?”
Obama “Of course not!”
Query “So why are you still attending his Church?”
Obama “LALALALA Hope, Change, Audacity, LALALALA I can’t hear you!”
March 14th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Thanks, Illinoisguy!
I think that this is going to make Obama’s campaign turn into a piece of burnt toast.
What do you think?
No matter how he tries to explain it away, it is not going to go away.
We are going to be seeing and hearing more and more of Rev. Wright’s sermons on the news and online. It is going to be harder and harder to believe that Obama had no clue that this kind of filfth was coming out of his mentor and pastor’s mouth on a continuous basis.
And what if he didn’t know? What does that say about his ability to be in tune with what’s going on around him? What does that say about Obama’s ability to keep on top of things? What does it say about Obama’s “almighty” judgment — the only real leg he is now standing on to be qualified for President of our great United States of America?
If America does not turn away from Obama and his ilk, we are in big trouble.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
P.S. Doesn’t it seem like the Democrats have a really lousy track record of vetting their nominees and potential nominees?
March 14th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
It bothers me that Obama follows a hater, and if Americans vote for him they are asking to have their values thrown out along with our freedoms. But McCain is also a hater, or at least a DESPISER of conservative Americans. Can a true conservative American please fill the absolute vacuum that exists this political cycle? Anyone. Forbes, Perot, I’m scraping the bottom of the barrel for ANYONE willing to make a play this late in the game I just hate to have to waste my vote honey
March 14th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
belthopaz:
I think the Democrats problem is an unavoidable byproduct of the media bias that favors them in other ways. Look at McCain — he shared a stage with a nutjob for a single event and his “connection” with anti catholic bigot got play before Obama’s 20 year connection with this guy.
And re your comment #53:
Bingo
March 15th, 2008 at 12:52 am
#63 - Sean P:
You are so right! The media is, by nature, superficial - always looking for the quick and instant sell - a flash in the pan, but no substance.
Liberals, by nature, have a tendencies to (1) go with their emotions, and (2) think that history began the day they were born.
Let’s just hope and pray that there are more thinking and history-wise folks than feeling and “today is all that’s important” folks come November 4th, 2008!