Posted on 09/19/2008 8:30:05 PM PDT by kellynla
For months, a prominent theme in the mainstream press was Senator John McCain’s alleged difficulty attracting evangelical support. After years of watching helplessly as conservative Christians handed political victories to conservative candidates, Big Media thought it had discovered a new type of evangelical voter, one for whom “fetus fatigue” had set in. This new type of believer, we were told, was tired of debates over abortion and marriage and wanted instead to discuss issues like AIDS and universal health care.
But as quickly as this narrative was picked up by the media, it has been abandoned -- and for good reason. As the candidates’ positions have come into sharp focus, polling indicates that evangelicals have rallied around the conservative candidate for president, John McCain.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
No levelheaded American is going to vote for an anti-American Racist Socialist.
Why even the Clintons & the Clintonistas aren't going to vote for this clown...it ruins Clinton's plan to run in 2012 if Obama is elected POTUS.
Yea, Obama has two chances of winning on 2012...slim & none. And "Slim" just left the building. LOL
ping
We should start a collection of money for the Clintoons to have if they Vote for McCain and prove it. That would pay off her campaign debt and throw Obama under the bus? /h
"Obama tries to distract Catholic voters by appealing to their strong sense of social justice with calls for universal health care and government-mandated environmental protection....
And as a popular new video ad by www.catholicvote.com explains, there is no more important set of issues than the protection of our most basic values of liberty, family and life."
Unfortunately, socialized health care and government mandated anything amounts to socialism. And socialism erodes liberty, family and life.
Why are some people so hell bent on their own destruction?
This Christian believer is voting for McCain/Palin 2008.
I haven’t been in any pain over it either.
The little o, and his ilk is in for an awakening come Nov 5th.
You may be right, but I am still worried that guillible people will flock to Oprah’s Obama, such as Barbra Streisand and Woody Allen, and they have many admirers.
You might be surprised by how many otherwise normal everyday Americans have been seduced by the Anointed One and plan to vote for him in Nov. I have been stunned by the pro-Obama and bitterly anti-Bush letters to the editorial pages of the local paper here in this historically Republican/conservative county in north GA. This county went almost 2-1 for Bush both times he ran, but if the anti-GOP mood I am seeing in many local people these days who have been Republican voters in the past is as prevalent and widespread as it appears to be the county could very well go to Obamessiah.
I'm not worried at this point that Obama could carry the entire state, but I am disgusted that the local people who have fared quite well under Bush's administration would fall for the crapola of a slick empty suit like Obama. There are very few AfroAmericans, less than 200 IIRC, compared to around 26,000 whites living in this north GA county that isn't in the cotton belt and was pro-union, anti-slavery during the civil war, so race isn't a factor here in the antipathy toward Bush and Republicans in general this year
The clincher is my second observation in that not even the Clintonistas are gonna vote for Obama.
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/
ELECTION 2008 - CAST YOUR CATHOLIC VOTE
McCain/Palin (R)
514 (68%)
Obama/Biden (D)
192 (25%)
Baldwin/Castle (C)
11 (1%)
Barr/Root (L)
6 (0%)
Nader/Gonzales (I)
4 (0%)
Keyes/Rohrbough (I)
25 (3%)
Change your vote
Votes so far: 752
Days left to vote: 45
I live in the South in a place that usually goes GOP (to the extent that Dems usually change parties here when they run for local office, or otherwise they wouldn’t have a chance). I started working at the McCain campaign office, and I have been heartened by the number of Dems who have come in to ask for bumper stickers or to contribute because they are appalled by the idea of voting for the nutcase Obama. So that’s good.
But if you looked at our newspaper or walked the streets, you’d think the town was a hot-bed of left-wing Dems. This is partly because they are much more aggressive, and write absolutely vicious letters to the paper (I’m surprised some of them even get published) and stand on the street corners waving offensive anti-Bush signs, and partly because they are much better organized. The Obama campaign has been active here for months; the GOP headquarters just opened and we don’t even have bumper stickers or yard signs to give people.
I think a lot of it is because the GOP got overconfident and careless in certain traditionally conservative areas. And some of it is attributable to the fact that the Dems have changed and the radical wing of their party has become respectable and even the norm. I’m amazed at how many middle-class grannies there are (many from the Northeast, of course) out there wearing black MoveOn.org tee shirts and screaming obscenities about Bush and our troops at their weekly “demonstration” on our plaza. To some extent, I think this has taken traditional GOP conservatives by surprise and given the Dems an advantage.
Bauer is correct, but is this point being articulated clearly to the faith community, among both Catholics and Protestants?
The glib answer at Saddleback belies the seriousness of the question posed by Warren, and a man who claims professorial status on the United States Constitution should have seen it as a constitutional question--not merely a "theological" one.
The answer was not above the "pay grade" of America's Founders, and their answer appeared in their philosophical foundation statement, where they explicitly staked the claim to "Creator-endowed" rights. Why else would the rights to life and liberty be deemed "unalienable"? If such rights were at the whim of a single citizen (a woman) or of judges or legislators, then they could not be claimed to be "unalienable."
Thomas Jefferson capsulized it as:
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
Catholics and Protestants, as well as other religious persons, who love liberty might examine the candidates' willingness to affirm the basic principle underlying our form of government.
It's sad that Biden falls for this liberal stuff because he should know better. He has been informed of his errors on abortion. He can't claim that liberal line about "not imposing his faith" because it's not a mystery of faith. It's an issue of reason, common sense, natural law, objective scientific evidence, and human rights. Why doesn't he run that line about not imposing his faith on rape, murder, theft, slavery, civil rights, and spousal abuse? Or anything else prohibited in the moral codes of Judaism and Christianity which finds parallels in Anglo-Saxon law? Like, say, plagiarism.
Gee doesn't that sound familiar. Whadduhsuprise.
I have a hunch that law schools assign the bottom of the faculty barrel to teach "Constitutional law.". I recall Billyboy Clinton once taught it also--he who reminded us one day "as the Constitution says--'of the people, by the people and for the people.' "
So it figures that O-Bunghole wouldn't get that a question about rights is not a theological one.
Biden took office as a skull full of liberal mush in 1972 when they all were still giddy about Roe. He hasn't had an original thought in his life, and obviously hasn't learned anything in 36 years.
He has had brain surgery. Wonder why that was not raised by the MSM as an issue?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.