posted
I don't think Barack Obama will want to bring up the topic of "kooky religion" after what we've learned about his own involvement in a rather far-left church community.
But, for the sake of discussion, what are you hearing about her religious beliefs, Katy? I've gathered that she's an evangelical Christian, but that's about it.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phil, She was brought up in the Assemblies of God church. I don't know when she left it and joined non-denominational, but there is a video of her speaking at the AOG church on You Tube, and it was when she was Governor . I think these are really nice:
Anyway, she and McCain were here in the Cincinnati area yesterday, and the local radio talk show host here had an Assemblies of God minister as his guest, who was explaining their religion. They believe in Baptism of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, etc. and also the rapture. She also believes in creationism.
I doubt too, that Obama will bring up the topic but you never know... yeah, a far left and a far right. lol.
BTW, I think she herself is going to be a guest on the local talk show here! I'll let you know.
posted
I'm not seeing anything unusual, here, unless one wants to think that Assemblies of God beliefs and spirituality disqualifies someone from political office. I'd be just as concerned about Obama's church and its radical views influencing him, but he, like Palin, seems to recognize that in the political sphere, you can't be using "mandates from God" to justify your positions.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Phil: ...in the political sphere, you can't be using "mandates from God" to justify your positions.
Amen! I wish more politicians would realize that.
IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
Senator Chuck Hagel on Sarah Palin ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
It is telling that senior Republican senator Chuck Hagel, a prominent McCain supporter in 2000, has declined to endorse his election efforts in 2008. Here is Chuck Hagel on Palin:
quote:. "I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia'. That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."
"You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."
"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States." .
quote:It is telling that senior Republican senator Chuck Hagel, a prominent McCain supporter in 2000, has declined to endorse his election efforts in 2008.
Not if you know Chuck Hagel - it probably helped McCain.
Posts: 417 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home. The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC.
posted
Very interesting. Anti-econcomic-regulation proponents like McCain has traditionally been are at a disadvantage these days. A bad economy moves votes to Obama, while a dangerous world benefits McCain. Somehow, McCain has to figure out how to get the economy to calm down, and soon.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
Sarah Palin -- Presidential material? –––––––––––––––––––––––
Here are some enlightening answers by Ms Sarah Palin:
posted
LOL! Well, that depends on who you read, I guess.
I thought Palin did very well. The media had portrayed her as a ditsy bimbo and she proved to be otherwise.
The second McCain - Obama debate was very disappointing in that the questions chosen by Brokaw from the hundreds submitted were typical, Washington media ones, not very different from the first debate. We could have learned much more personal info about the candidates but, instead, we got a hundreth dose on their plans for the healthcare, foreign policy, and the economy (assuming there is one).
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
The measure of debating success... ---------------------------------------------
Well, Phil, it doesn’t matter what I think or you think, nor does it matter what conservative or liberal pundits think. And it certainly is not a question "of who you read".
The object of the debates, and the yardstick for measuring a candidate’s success or failure in said debate, is to what degree he or she convinces the voter -- and in particular the undecided voter.
The numbers are in. The numbers are unequivocal: - Obama scored much more convincingly than McCain in both debates. - Biden scored more convincingly than Palin.
That’s not punditry; it’s not opinion; it’s not conjecture. And I would be happy to quote you the evidence.
IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
PS. I am certainly glad the debate revolved around foreign policy, the economy, and health care. That some candidates choose to talk about how their love of America, and the patriotism of their past record -- rather than answering questions -- is another matter.
I can’t think of anything more fitting than leaving the "personal info" to the National Enquirer and their ilk.
On the other hand, using the label "that one" to refer to the other candidate is outrageous. This is likely to leave a lasting negative impression that I don’t see how McCain’s spin doctors can make go away. And I suspect that American voters will respond appropriately in the polls.
PPS. I am most curious as to how the race will look when new poll results are in from the swing states Missouri and North Carolina. If those states as well swing toward Obama, we’ll approach a 2:1 tilt in the expected Electoral Vote outcome.
IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
The numbers after Presidential Debate No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------
What does it show? Let us for the moment ignore the fact that the Democratic audience gives Obama a much more enthusiastic score card than the Republicans’ evaluation of McCain.
Concentrating exclusively on the undecided voters (the numbers in the middle column), we note the following:
Who won the debate -------------------------
Obama: 54 % McCain: 28 % (CNN/ORC)
Obama: 40 % McCain: 26 % (CBS/KN)
Obama: 52 % McCain: 34 % (Media curves)
In other words, the Obama debate victory amongst undecided voters is somewhere between 2:1 and 3:2. That’s pretty darned convincing!
posted
Problem with debates is that they mean very little. The pundits gave Gore and Kerry the edge in 2000 and 04, respectively, and they both lost. Voters will judge not on the basis of who has the more polished debate skills, but who they believe will be the best President for the country at this time. To my thinking, it's still an open race and anything can happen. Obama clearly has the edge, but it's always been the Democrats' election to lose. Question is, however, why isn't Obama further ahead in the polls?
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Phil: Problem with debates is that they mean very little. The pundits gave Gore and Kerry the edge in 2000 and 04, respectively, and they both lost...
Excellent point. Which is exactly why I ignored the pundits, but focused on how the Undecideds evaluated the debates. They’re the ones who count. The Decideds have ...well, already decided.
posted
New swing states come into play --------------------------------------
quote:Originally posted by HeartPrayer: PPS. I am most curious as to how the race will look when new poll results are in from the swing states Missouri and North Carolina. If those states as well swing toward Obama, we’ll approach a 2:1 tilt in the expected Electoral Vote outcome.
All the sudden conservative North Carolina has become a swing state! The latest Rasmussen poll has it a dead heat, whereas before this was a "sure thing" for McCain.
Moreover, Obama has taken the lead in Missouri, another important swing state.
Same thing in Ohio, except that Obama’s lead there appears more decisive.
In mid-September, McCain was leading in Virginia. No more! fivethirtyeight.com’s projection is an Obama victory by 6.5 %. That’s quite an earthquake.
Meanwhile, McCain’s lead in West Virginia has shrunk to less than a percentage point. Yet a new swing state!
What we’re seeing in effect is that unexpected states are becoming new swing states, such as Indiana.
There is even a poll that puts Obama ahead in North Dakota; but I think you can chalk this one up to polling irregularity. Here, where McCain had a double-digit lead, he is still ahead a "comfortable" +3 %.
At present, all the sources that I’ve checked indicate a 2:1 Obama lead in the Electoral College. And that’s what counts.
IP: Logged |
As Yogi Berra used to say, "It ain't over til it's over."
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
Enjoying every minute of these final innings ---------------------------------------------------------
Call off the election?!
But then we would miss all the fun: The voting public’s gradual awakening and growing rejection of the prospect of continued Republican policies. And Obama’s widening margin in the projected Electoral College vote, which currently stands at 360 to 178 (slightly better than 2:1).
Dare we hope for 60 Democrats in the new Senate? Yes, we dare!
Rest assured, I’m not taking anything as a foregone conclusion. There are too many unknown factors -- including the possibility of hacked voting machines. And who knows, maybe Senator John McCain will say something magically convincing in the last debate.
Couldn’t agree more: "It ain’t over til it’s over."
posted
Watch for an endorsement of Obama by Osama bin Laden. That pretty much happened in 04 as it seemed he was plugging Kerry at the last minute.
I don't think it would be a good thing to have Democrats leading the Executive and Legislative branches -- an Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumverate. They're all very liberal, polarizing, and with scant evidence of bipartisanship (unlike McCain, here). If that should happen, watch for Republicans to take over the House in 2010, as in 1994.
As for getting away from those awful "continued Republican policies," you're giving the Dems an awfully big pass on their politically correct policies for home-ownership, aren't you? It was the Dems that pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie-Mac into buying subprime loans and the Dems who resisted stricter oversight. They can point fingers at Bush all they want, but the Freddie/Fannie debacle is on them!
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
