Advice for the Democrats

Yes, I see how you are moving on from the Palin topic. Quite.

The Party of Murder and their political supporters need to repent for their plank on abortion:

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

… Although Nuremberg-style trials against the abortion leaders and legislators should still be held.

Sigh. This isn’t so much advice as it is extending the complaint, is it?

“Ordinary Americans” like her, huh? I love the Republican delusion that those who disagree with them are not ordinary Americans. There’s good ol’ hard-working Americans driving pick-up trucks, listening to country music, living outside the city center and always voting Republican, and then there’s, you know, freaks. Transvestites, terrorist Muslims, and Chomsky readers. Those are the only two choices!

The person who first told me about the Palin pick (from Texas, by the way) was incensed by the pick, calling it insultingly cynical. But you can ignore her because you’ve already labelled her as abnormal. Convenient. Just like you can ignore everything you don’t like in the media.

Look, I get that the Republican base — including most here — loves Palin, and I have no doubt that that’s why McCain picked her. I mean look at how rabid things have gotten here! People who once talked about voting third party are all up in arms over Palin, to the degree that I’m not sure they remember (or care) McCain’s still running. That said, the Republican base does not define “ordinary Americans”. Sorry to break it to you.

And exactly who is the argument here against? Some nameless Democrat making some unspecified “snarky” attack. You’ll pardon me if I’m reminded of the would-be list of 71 or so “vicious lies” (which I addressed in comment on a previous entry), which seems to be more of an attack on the left than it is a representation of the left’s attack.

Anyhow, I’d love it if we all moved on to Palin’s actual positions on the issues. Or, you know, McCain’s. I hear he’s still running. But I can only comment on the conversation, not start it.

tODD, I really recommend the article Joe cites in Veith’s other Palin post today. Perhaps that more open Democratic view is what Veith has in mind and actually might open the party to folks like me. Have you read it yet?

The more we praise Palin as the candidate of the “ordinary American,” the more we call attention to the fact that Obama, a black man, is not one of “us.” Yet he has an “ordinary American” family, a wife (his first and only) and two young kids, who seem quite well adjusted. He publicly believes that Christ died for his sins and has been baptised. He was raised by a single mom, with help from his grandparents. He studied hard and got into some good schools, where he did very well. He makes a good living, but he does not appear to be consumed by greed. He got millions of votes in the Democratic primaries and accoriding to polls currently he is supported by many millions of Americans.
Wouldn’t many WELS, ELS and LCMS Lutheran parents would be pleased to see their children acquire a similar resume? Yet he’s not the “ordinary American.” It’s not because of his points of view.

What Bryan said @ 7 really sums it up: “I really recommend the article Joe cites in Veith’s OTHER PALIN POST TODAY. (Emphasis mine)” As tODD remarked, way to change the conversation.

Obviously not, caligula, or it wouldn’t have stung you so.

Oh dear, Obama brought it up again on Letterman:
“Keep in mind, technically, had I meant it this way, [Palin] would be the lipstick. The failed policies of John McCain would be the pig, just following the logic of this illogical situation,” Obama said.
Now it doesn’t help to personify a woman as a mere cosmetic accessory.
Nor it doesn’t help to identify the pig as McCain (or his policies). Didn’t one of the three little pigs have a sailor hat? Small eyes? Bristly white hair? For the candidate to make this comparison is too subliminally on the mark.
And McCain is certainly not a ‘Porky’.
OK, “Th-th-th-that’s all folks!”
It’s just too much fun when Obama is off script!

Yes, it appears as if you are ready to move on….

My apologies for any offense to the character of Benedict Arnold by associating him with pro-abortionists.

Race is an inconvenient truth, Carl.
You’re wrong with respect to abortion. Palin’s alleged views don’t appeal to the ordinary American, if ordinary means most Americans. Even McCain doesn’t hold Palin’s views, and most Americans don’t quite share McCain’s. So her appeal must lie elsewhere.
But it is not unAmerican to reject Palin.

Now back, at least somewhat, to the topic. The latest talking point the Democrats appear to be promoting (first uttered by Donna Brazille last weekend, but repeated on the House floor yesterday) is “Jesus Christ was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor”.

Could anything be less “ordinary American” than that? Do Democrats think a cheap attack on Palin like that is going to be effective? Do they think this will give them greater credence with people of faith? Do they have any idea whatsoever what the Christian faith really is about?

They seem to be coming unhinged.

If anyone is interested, the reason abortion is/was/always will be a lightning rod is this:
God revealed Himself to us as a Father who does not abort his children, inconvenient and wayward though they may be. The serpent tempts us otherwise: “You will be like God”. But it’s a lie. God doesn’t take a life for His convenience.

Don S @ 23,

“Do they have any idea whatsoever what the Christian faith really is about?” Those Democrats who are Christians probably do. I suspect the POLITICIANS among Democrats who claim to be Christians, however, are Democrats first, and Christians second. So that comment was in keeping with their priorities.

Which is not to say it was a good analogy! A pretty cheap shot, in my opinion, and apropos of nothing.

Sam @ 28: I suspect your question is strongly connected to the issue of abortion. If so, till fairly recently, there were pro-life Democrats, like Kucinich, who has changed his stance since then. But so is there pro-choice Republicans.

But back to a previous issue mentioned here – somebody claimed a specific choice/vote was pro-American. Last time I heard that type of argument was in apartheid South Africa, where I grew up. Same as the “between the lines” insinuations some debaters here have been employing.

Really people, you might strongly disagree with somebody’s politics, but you still have to love your neighbour, even your cyber-neighbour.

Scylding, your point about loving our neighbor is well taken. My question to Don was mainly connected to abortion. Carl (and likely others) advocate that Palin’s “American” views on that topic are why the ordinary American likes her so. Her views, to the extent that they can be discerned, are way out of the mainstream. Even if you agree with her, you’ve got to admit that most Americans do not want abortion criminalized. But because she is sold as pro life, she’s acceptable to the typical right-leaning evangelical. I don’t say that to be snarky. Palin’s already been proven false about opposing the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, yet she keeps saying it, and no evagelical seems to object to that lack of truthfulness. So, to my amazement, pro life trumps honesty every time.
There are, by the way, plenty of prolife Democrats (e.g., Nat Hentoff and thousands more), just ,as you mention, there are plenty of prochoice Republicans. It should go without saying that an American may feel comfortable as a D or R without accepting every last plank in the party’s platform.

On another point, maybe some R’s here who have derided Obama as the Messiah can explain why that didn’t offend them as Christians. While I certainly disagreed with that attack, I did so in part because it seemed to mock the name of our Lord. Because Messiah means Christ, it was the same as mocking Obama with the name of Christ. I could see why nonChristian conservatives could do that, because to them, Messiah is just a term to throw around. But I always winced when Christians here and elsewhere used the term as a kind of reproach. Your opinion of Obama aside, should Christians use the name of Christ to mock a political opponent?

Sam @ 31: What does the phrase “well out of the mainstream” mean? I know the media frequently uses it to paint Republicans as being right wing extremists, but those Republicans then go on to win their elections oftentimes, so I guess their views weren’t so far out of the mainstream as the media had supposed. The truth is, that Obama’s views are likely far more out of the mainstream than Palin’s.

Besides, shouldn’t Christians have views that are out of the mainstream of the world’s views? We are to choose the narrow winding way that leads to life, not the broad path that leads to destruction. Right?

Don #33 – “Well out the mainstream” means that it is not held by a large majority of people. Or it can mean that the view is held by a small minority. I was speaking of Americans generally, not Christians, much less conservative Christians. Palin allegedly believe that abortion should never be legal, unless to save the mother’s life. McCain and Bush believe in other exceptions. While I have no poll numbers handy, I can say confidently that the majority of Americans (and Republicans) do not share Palin’s view.
The truth is, abortion does not control presidential outcomes. Abortion is legal in the US and will be until Roe v. Wade is overturned (and jurisdictions affirmatively pass laws outlawing abortion, something that likely won’t happen) or the US Constitution is amended to outlaw abortion.
What matters most to Americans is the economy and the war in Iraq, etc. On these topics, neither Obama nor McCain have views that are well out of the mainstream, given that their poll numbers are close.
We talk about abortion on this blog likes it’s the only issue out there, but the rest of America does not.

FACT CHECK CALLS MCCAIN/PALIN AD DISHONEST.

Would it be bearing false witness to call these McCain/Palin ads and DELIBERATE distortions “sleazy” and “vicious”? Especially when they distort the findings of a neutral third party endorsed by our host here?

Fact Check has NEVER issued a statement like this one before. Unprecidented. Amazing.

So much for integrity on the part of Palin and MCCain:

Quote from the FactCheck web site follows:

Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn’t come from Obama.
Summary
A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama’s attacks on Palin “absolutely false” and “misleading.” That’s what we said, but it wasn’t about Obama.

Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.

The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to “dig into her record and background.” The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to “dig dirt.”

Update, Sept. 10: Furthermore, the Obama campaign insists that no researchers have been sent to Alaska and that the Journal owes them a correction.
Analysis
We don’t object to people reprinting our articles. In fact, our copyright policy encourages it. But we’ve also asked that “the editorial integrity of the article be preserved” and told those who use our items that “you should not edit the original in such a way as to alter the message.”

McCain-Palin 2008 Ad:
“Fact Check”

Announcer: The attacks on Governor Palin have been called “completely false”…”misleading.”

On screen: Photo of Obama, FactCheck.org banner, “‘completely false’ . . . ‘misleading’ 9/0/08”

And, they’ve just begun.

The [Wall Street] Journal reports Obama “air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers” into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Palin.

As Obama drops in the polls, he’ll try to destroy her.

Obama’s “politics of hope”? Empty words.

McCain: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

Less Than Honest

With its latest ad, released Sept. 10, the McCain-Palin campaign has altered our message in a fashion we consider less than honest. The ad strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said “completely false” attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. We said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin.

They call the ad “Fact Check.” It says “the attacks on Gov. Palin have been called ‘completely false’ … ‘misleading.’ ” On screen is a still photo of a grim-faced Obama. Our words are accurately quoted, but they had nothing to do with Obama.

Our article, posted two days earlier, debunked a number of false or misleading claims that have circulated in chain e-mails and Internet postings regarding Palin. There is no evidence that the Obama campaign is behind any of the wild accusations that we critiqued. There is no more basis for attributing these viral attacks to the Obama campaign than there is for blaming the McCain campaign for chain e-mail attacks falsely claiming that Obama is a Muslim, or a “racist,” or that he is proposing to tax water. The anti-Palin messages, like the anti-Obama messages, have every appearance of being home-grown.

Digging for “Dirt”

The ad also quotes the Wall Street Journal as saying that the Obama campaign “air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers to dig dirt on Governor Palin.” That’s also a distortion. The Wall Street Journal opinion article did not say that the Obama team was there to “dig dirt.” It said they were there do “dig into her record and background.” Maybe the McCain-Palin campaign knows something we don’t about what’s in Palin’s record and background.

The full quote, from an item by conservative columnist John Fund, dated Sept. 9:

WSJ’s John Fund, Sept. 9: Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin’s hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected her on August 29.

Fund said the opposition researchers were mainly interested in a controversy surrounding Palin’s firing of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan. Monegan has claimed he was dismissed because he wouldn’t fire a state trooper who was in a divorce battle with Palin’s sister; the Alaska Legislature is investigating whether Palin acted properly. Fund also stated that the Palin family has accused the trooper of “using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson, drinking in his patrol car and illegally shooting a moose.”

Now, that’s “dirt.”

Update, Sept. 10: After this article was posted, the Obama campaign contacted us to say that John Fund’s article is wrong.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor, Sept. 10: John Fund’s claim that we “air-dropped” 30 lawyers into Alaska is false. No one from the Obama campaign or the DNC has been sent to Alaska. We’ve asked Mr. Fund for a correction.
Footnote: At least one Obama spokesman has repeated an allegation that we debunked in our story, that Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan. However, the Obama campaign was not the originator of the claim.

–by Brooks Jackson

Aren’t politicians by definition outside the mainstream? They’re usually just spouting rhetoric to win over some segment of the voting block which they don’t currently have in thrall. It’s pretty hard for me to take what any of them say at face value. Don’t know about the rest of you, but they can say one thing and then do another only so many times before I stop trusting ANYTHING that comes out of their mouths. I guess it’s the old “Fool me once, shame on you…”

I’ll forego the rest of that statement for all you GWB fans out there…

Michael tlb, I think Sam made a humourous comment on the lack of response to fw. But your statement in #39 is oh so valid – we need bags of salt at election time (yes, its that time in Canada too, if nobody noticed…)

Scylding (@41), what is it with you Canadians and buying things in bags? Milk, salt …

tODD,

Sorry for the delay, but our internet service has been down.

Look at my post #5 again. I INTENTIONALLY did not use the terms liberal or conservative. I INTENTIONALLY used the term “elites”, to refer to decision makers and those in power, not specifying a party or belief system.

YOU jumped to the conclusion that I was a conservative and that my use of “elites” referred to liberals (only).

Since I’ve got a moment, I’ll add a point to @44. We’ve talked here about how to argue, etc. One problem I’ve noticed (and may well have committed) is the all-or-nothing type of argument. One’s side has got to be always right. No exceptions.
Today’s script is that Palin is a victim. Now, there certainly have been unfair attacks made on her, as there have been on all candidates, and these attacks should be roundly denounced. But one can denounce an unfair attack and still acknowledge that Palin herself can make such an attack, as fw has shown (I’m attributing whatever the McCain/Palin campaign does to McCain and Palin personally).
What we should be about here (on political topics anyway) is not the idolotrous worship of any candidate (or demonization of any opposing candidate), but a discussion of ideas and how those ideas can be best implemented. One can honestly think that McCain/Palin is much better than Obama/Biden and thus should be elected. Well and good. Make your case on ideas, not on the discredited notion that because you like Palin, she is a saint. The same for those who like Obama. I support the guy, but he’s got plenty of faults. But in the main I like his ideas and think that tempermentally he’s the better candidate. I could be wrong.
But the discussions here would be so much better if we (I) could give some ground now and then.

Sam @ 47: You are missing the entire point of Dr. Veith’s post. Sarah Palin is not a victim. She is perfectly capable of standing up for herself and she is doing just fine.

The point of the post was that the Obama campaign and its surrogates are revealing an awful lot about themselves and their character by the way that they have chosen to attack Palin, without provocation. Dr. Veith is warning them away from these types of attacks, because they are bound to backfire on themselves.

Sam @50 — I didn’t have an hour to read through Frank’s post. But I said “and his surrogates” in my post, didn’t I? Campaigns usually use surrogates these days to do their attacking so they can keep their own hands clean. I’m being non-partisan here, both sides do it that way.

Don @51, you’re copping out, bro. It takes less than 1 minute to read fw’s post.
And the culprit here is the McCain/Palin campaign, not surrogates. Indeed, McCain himself said he approved of one factless commercial.
fw @52, be encouraged.

Sam @ 53: I’m not copping out. I just don’t think there’s much there. Best I can tell, the McCain camp put out an ad touting FactCheck’s resolution of some of the false accusations made against Palin in the last week. That much is true. They stated or at least implied that these accusations and the army of lawyers and investigators in AK were made/sent by the Obama campaign. According to FactCheck, that’s false, it wasn’t the Obama campaign.

So I already dealt with this. It wasn’t the Obama campaign, it was surrogates for the Obama campaign. That’s how things are typically done these days, so campaigns can keep their fingers clean. The ad was wrong and shouldn’t have been made that way, no doubt. But it doesn’t seem like much of a deal to me.

Wow, Sam @ 56: You may have just really stepped in it with that last comment.

Dude, Don, seriously, you should read the bits Sam linked to. You “step in it” every time you say things like that without first reading what the relevant information happens to be.

Gene Veith wrote: “Stop the condescending, snarky, personal attacks on Sarah Palin. See, ordinary Americans really like her.”

However, tODD (@6) twisted his response to Gene’s assertion by saying: “I love the Republican delusion that those who disagree with them are not ordinary Americans.”

This response has nothing to do with Gene’s comments, other than providing another snarky, personal, unsubstantiated, and off-topic attack on Republicans (i.e., the party that doesn’t promote murder-by-abortion of unborn Americans in its platform for the past three decades).

tODD also makes another snarky and unsubstantiated claim: That said, the Republican base does not define “ordinary Americans”. Sorry to break it to you.

Well, again, tODD, your opinion is pretty much only that.

According to a Rasmussen report, the GOP base, by its majority (89%) approval of Sarah Palin does define the independents’ majority (59%) approval, and even the overall majority (58%) approval. Only those whose party and presidential nominee advocate murder-by-abortion are defined as giving Palin a less-than-ordinary minority (33%) approval.

Oh Carl (@61), are you now opposed to snark, not to mention unsubstantiated or off-topic posts? Why the change?

Anyhow, I won’t deny the first charge, but of course what I said was a direct response to Veith’s post, so I’m not sure how you figure it was “off-topic”. As for “unsubstantiated”, well, I’ll spell it out for you:

Veith addresses his post to Democrats. He says they should stop attacking Palin because “ordinary Americans really like her”. It’s obvious that Republicans (particularly the base) really like her, and it’s also obvious that Democrats do not. Do you see how this works? Ipso facto, Democrats are not “ordinary Americans”! Tada! (I, of course, disagree.)

Even if you take into account the one survey you pointed to, 42% of the country (as of a week ago, so who knows where it is now, given how these things change) did not hold a favorable view of Palin. Does that mean that 42% of the country is not “ordinary”? And if we are to believe that surveys of the general American public define what “ordinary Americans” believe, what are we to make of the fact that, from that same survey, 60% of Americans do not believe Palin is ready to be President? That’s even more than who view her favorably! So “ordinary Americans” like her, they just don’t seem to think she’s qualified.

But I’m fascinated by your not-quite-counter-claim that the Republican base might actually define “ordinary Americans”. After all, the Republican base is pretty much the only group still in favor of President Bush. Ordinary Americans long ago stopped favoring him. But if you’d prefer, we could break it out by issue and see how various positions poll with Americans. (Sad to say, I don’t think that the ordinary American agrees with you and me on abortion.)

would it be unchristian to call this add by palin/mc cain SLEAZY???? dishonest? viciously distorted?

ttp://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

LAJ (@64), you asked, “Do we really want the government running our health care or socialized medicine?” Well, the last time I heard, the elderly were quite happy with Medicare. And average people who aren’t on Medicare seem rather unhappy, on average, with their employer-provided insurance, assuming that their employers actually provide that benefit, which is getting rarer.

As to the Bridge to Nowhere, guess which campaign is making its centerpiece the idea that its candidates are a bunch of mavericks who’ll fight earmarks? McCain once ran an ad specifically attacking the Bridge to Nowhere. He mocked earmarks funding research involving bear DNA. Then he picked as his vice presidential candidate the governor of the state with by far the largest per capita earmarks, who had supported the Bridge to Nowhere and larger amounts of earmarks for research into seal and crab DNA, among other things. So is McCain really opposed to earmarks, given that he picked her? And what does it say about Palin’s believability, given how she talks tough about pork now that she’s no longer trying to appeal to just Alaskans?

I also would welcome a return to “average Americans” serving short term in both local and national governments.

I know I have said before that I like Palin more than McCain. That still remains true for me. You know, I would actually like her more, if she promised to limit her federal carreer. Wouldn’t that be something. I would like Obama better too if he did something like that. Its too late for the other 2 old guys.

Few notes and then back to “homework”.

Post #37 – Political add stuff disappoints me greatly, run a good add on issues… where they too dumb to know people would find this out. I don’t like this stuff from any party and politician. Bad form!

I just found out I’m politically equivalent to a hockey Mom or the average American! How embarrassing. I thought I was informed politically, you know… watch the blogs, research politicians and their votes, follow the new and keep up on the foreign news from BBC and the like. But I could not answer Mr. Gibson’s question. I did not know Bush’s doctrine from 2002. Quite frankly I thought his policy was “p*** everyone off globaly”.

Did everyone here know Bush’s doctrine? I do remember talking alot about Just-War theory and Augustine in 2002 (I was in Seminary).

Scylding, there still -are- pro-life Democrats among the rank and file, but I don’t believe that they are having any influence on the national level, and the national party platform is very strongly pro-death.

And to whomever claimed that it wasn’t about life and death, but about power; it really is about life and death. Do you then believe that all laws against murder be dropped, indeed all laws, since you don’t believe people should have authority over other people’s choices, specifically including a particuarly brutal form of murder?

Sam, we weren’t using the title of Christ to mock BHO, but were calling the warning that there were masses of people treating him as though he -were- the messiah, and since it is Jesus Who is, then he would have to be an antichrist.

The abortion issue is of such great importance, Sam, because it is about the brutal murder of roughly 50 million Americans, and countless more worldwide. That is why it is more important than the speed limit, or whether or not to have a leash law.

fw, FactCheck is owned by the left-wing Annenberg Foundation, which supports BHO, hired BHO, helped him get his political career going, etc. As such it isn’t a reliable source of information.

Sam, what is relevant about left wing talking points? What does that have to do with the topic, other than illustrate it?

Forgot my own footnote (@74).

*Honestly, Palin’s summation of what she thinks the Bush Doctrine is — “his world view” — may be the most accurate. That is, there isn’t much of a consistent doctrine, other than what Bush thinks. First it was that any states harboring terrorists (a.k.a Afghanistan, but for whatever reason, not Saudi Arabia) were essentially terrorists themselves, and subject to attack. Fair enough. That lasted for all of a few months.

Then it was that we can pre-emptively attack any country we like if we feel — or at least assert — that they’re a danger to us, or might somehow be a threat, someday. And, wouldn’t you know it, that meant taking our focus off Afghanistan and the people who actually did bomb us, and put us in the middle of Iraq for 5+ years (could’ve been any number of countries with those qualifications, but we picked the low-hanging fruit, since we’d already defeated them once before). That was the doctrine (as such) that was spelled out in 2002.

The Wikipedia article Don (@72) points to also mentions this nebulous, quasi-doctrinal notion about supporting democracy throughout the world, although, of course, not in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Egypt … really, it’s hard to call that a serious doctrine, although it certainly sounds nice.

Don S,

Just got back to the party. Chalk yesterday’s gaffe’s (mine) to a bad starter on my sense of humor. It was coughing and choking all day. I’m gonna have to pull it and replace it. So all comments today will be sans humor. And I’ll skip the snark, too, just in case I keep missing the funny and “step in it” myself.

Oh, and APOLOGIES!!

No problem, Michael @ 77. I enjoy it when you are around. You add a lot to the conversation, and have both an excellent sense of humor and a relaxed debating style which makes things a lot less tense.

Just a thought: could we stop calling that bridge project in Alaska the “Bridge to Nowhere”? I mean, unless it’s just a shorthand or something. It’s most definitely NOT a bridge to nowhere. It’s a bad idea, to be sure, since the bridge would cost a HUGE amount of money and serve a very small population. But it’s just getting increasingly lame that everyone refers to it in this way. And I don’t just mean here. It’s especially funny coming from Palin, given she at one time defended it AGAINST that moniker.

Carl @ 61,

Stop the insanity!! Your hyperbolic statements about “[the] party and presidential nominee [who] advocate murder-by-abortion” do nothing to further discussion. They are just inflammatory and serve no other purpose. Once again, the party to which you refer – and people who are pro-choice in general, regardless of political affiliation – is not PRO-MURDER. I am pro-choice, and it is because, as I’ve said many times, I don’t feel so certain and confident that I am always right about everything. So I want to leave people’s decisions up to them. If you are so confident you’re right, why is that? What evidence do you have to back your position so absolutely that you feel justified in tossing out epithets which add nothing to a dialogue?

“people who are pro-choice in general, regardless of political affiliation – is not PRO-MURDER.”

Michael, this is a satanic-inspired delusion. In his Large Catechism explanation of the fifth commandment, Martin Luther states:

189] Secondly, under this commandment not only he is guilty who does evil to his neighbor, but he also who can do him good, prevent, resist evil, defend and save him, so that no bodily harm or hurt happen to him, and yet does not do it. 190]… So also, if you see any one innocently sentenced to death or in like distress, and do not save him, although you know ways and means to do so, you have killed him. And it will not avail you to make the pretext that you did not afford any help, counsel, or aid thereto, for you have withheld your love from him and deprived him of the benefit whereby his life would have been saved.

191] Therefore God also rightly calls all those murderers who do not afford counsel and help in distress and danger of body and life.

Recently Gene Veith posted a number of statements from the early church against abortion.

When you, Michael, vote for a pro-murder-by-abortion candidate, you fail to afford help to unborn Americans, and thus you are as guilty of murder as if you had performed the abortion yourself. Repent from your “pro-choice” way of helping murder unborn children.

Scriptural references are in a Lutherans for Life discussion, as well as an article, What About Abortion by former Missouri Synod President Al Barry.

Earlier church statements given in Gene Veith’s earlier references are congruent with how the Missouri Synod Lutherans understand Scripture. Of course, if you are not Lutheran or Christian, Scriptural understanding and the appliction of the fifth commandment to unborn children may mean little to you. This would seem to be the case, given your final retort, “Apparently Luther is more important to you than the God you purport to serve…”

In their article, ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview Newsbusters shows that substantive sections of Chuckie’s interview of Gov. Palin were not telecast. In one case ABC even cut part of Palin’s sentence to change the meaning of what she said. Other cut sections were not just boilerplate or irrelevant chit-chat, but discussions that provided important context to her telecast remarks, demonstrated her knowledge about some of the discussed issues, and, in one case, showed Chuckie agreeing with Gov. Palin.

Here is the complete transcript with the ABC-censored comments underlined and in boldface.

All this should not be surprising. Manipulative editing an interview to remove context and slanting the telecast is all in a day’s work for media clymers.

Carl,

Sorry, I thought you’d been here long enough to know I wasn’t a Christian, nor a believer in God. That has little to do with my position, which I’ve held since I was a Christian. I am pro-choice because I don’t take responsibility for the choices of other people. I also see life as being too complex for me to boil down to concepts which can be applied universally. That’s just how I see it. But I do not agree with abortion. I’m just not into legislating my personal beliefs. I’m down with taking responsibility for myself, and for no one else. You can call that a satanic lie if you want.

Michael, come on. Carl may be getting upset, but you are withdrawing into a purposely vague position.

Look, ALL criminal law is (in a sense) the government’s attempt to make other people’s decisions for them. The government says: you can’t do that; you may WANT to do that: you may feel justified in doing that, but never the less, you can’t do that; or at least, if you go ahead and do that, we’ll put you in jail.

So, if you believe that there should be any criminal laws at all, you actually DO believe that you (or your governmental representatives) DO have the right to make some decisions for other people. None of our discussions have lead me to believe that you are an anarchist, Michael, so what do you say we talk about practical matters here.

Since we agree that the government has the right to make SOME decisions for other people and punish SOME types of behavior, the question really is: What are the characteristics of the behaviors that the government may legitimately prohibit or punish?

So you tell me, Michael. What are the types of behavior that a government may legitimately criminalize, and why?

No offense taken, Michael. I am actually pretty libertarian in my outlook myself. Like you, I wish to live in a free society where people are free to work out their own destinies. And, I think the government should stay out of people’s lives and decisions as much as possible. Chalk it up to good old Lutheran two kingdom theology, or just Lockean love of freedom, but I don’t want an intrusive government and I don’t want the Church mixing with the government very much. Not because I think the Church will harm the government; rather because I think the government (which screws up so many things) will inevitably harm the Church.

But here comes that collision between the theoretical and the practical that invades our discussions so often. As much as I want few laws, I can see that there would be real problems if we had no laws. But don’t hold back now Michael, and take all the time you want. Unless you really want to live in a society with no government at all, if you want to live in a free society it is pretty important to formulate a good idea of what kind behavior the government should be able to prohibit and the proper limits of government authority. I have my own ideas, but I don’t want to influence you here. So, I’ll wait till you have thought it through.

Mc Cain Palin lies. and more lies….

http://www.mccainpedia.org/index.php/Count_the_Lies