Donny's Ramblings

As a Former Pro-Life Leader How DARE You Support Pro-Choice Obama?

62 Comments

Being self employed means that I sleep until my eyes open on their own. Rarely do I wake up to the sounds of an alarm. I’ve gotta tell you, it’s heavenly. I have a morning ritual of sorts: I grab my iPhone and check my email almost immediately after waking up. Once that has been accomplished, I browse the mobile versions of various news sites to see if any major news stories have arisen, then I’ll sometimes login to the mobile versions of MySpace or Facebook depending on whether or not I’ve received any new messages or friends requests.

This morning was no different.  In my inbox I received notice that a high school friend added me on Facebook, so I logged in to check out her profile and to see what she’s been up to. After reading her profile, I noticed an article posted by another Facebook “friend”: THIS ARTICLE, written by Frank Schaeffer, an Evangelist’s son who grew up in a strict fundamentalist household, just like I did.

But here’s the reason I changed my plans to walk the Sacramento River Trail this morning and to instead spend time writing this blog post: Frank and his family helped establish the Pro-Life Movement yet Frank, as he wrote in this article back in February, is both Pro-Life and Pro-Obama.  I just had to blog about his writings.

Many of the things he wrote in this article could just as easily have been written by me.  In fact, I’ve said some of the same things right here in this blog.  Here are a few lines I identified with:

As you know I was a lifelong Republican until I reregistered as an Independent in 2006, after I just couldn’t take the Rove brigade’s dirty tricks, lies and slime any longer.

Funny, cause I have been a Republican since I was old enough to vote, yet just a few weeks ago re-registered as an Independent because I’m disgusted by some of the things Republicans have been doing to this country, and the world,  and no longer want to belong to the party of the Good Ol’ Boys.

I know rather a lot about the politics of the “life issues.” And I know you know that is true because you are calling me a traitor for supporting Senator Obama because of my leadership in the early stages of the pro-life movement.

I received an email that let me know I was likely not truly a Christian if I could even consider voting for Barack Obama.  True story.

I know (as you pro-lifers do if you’re honest) that the Republicans have milked the abortion issue, as have the Evangelical and Roman Catholic leadership, for every dime it’s worth for fundraising, votes, power and empire-building, without changing much if anything. As I said, I also am fully aware that Senator Obama is pro-choice. I think his pro-choice views are out of character with his otherwise generous and enlightened world view.

That first line… AMEN, Brother Frank!  I’ve said nearly the same things here.  I think mine have always been worded more like this:  Republicans use the abortion issue to gain the Christian vote, and then forget about abortion until it’s time to run for re-election.

That said… First, a nod to reality: even if Roe were reversed (it won’t be no matter who is president) the abortion pill and the acceptance of at least some types of legal abortion by most Americans guarantees there will be access to abortion. Besides, on a state-by-state basis abortion would remain legal in most states no matter what the court does. And as we have seen the Republicans haven’t really changed anything in thirty years.

Again, haven’t we talked about these same things right here in this blog?  Roe-v-Wade will not be reversed, no matter who is President.  I’ve said that numerous times, but I think the point is best summed up by the comments of one of my readers, who wrote:

Anyone who votes Republican with the belief that GOP appointments to the SC will overturn Roe v. Wade should read about Stare Decisis. It is one of the principles that the Court views as a foundation for all decisions. Almost every Federal Judge (on the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts) clearly and unequivocally rejects the notion that the Supreme Court would EVER revisit a previous case and rule the opposite way. This would delegitimate all prior Court decisions and make any other opinion up for grabs if the justices change. The Court is supposed to be apolitical (the reason for lifetime appointments) and as such if it allowed decisions to be switched because of new appointments to the bench it would serve to politicize (to an even greater degree) the Court.

Frank states the following:

So what do we who find abortion abhorrent do if we want to deal in reality rather than fantasies and slogans of winner-take-all propaganda? The reality is that we need to foster a climate in which we can reduce the number of abortions and also keep the moral — rather than legal — debate alive.

We can’t do this by concentrating on politics, or silver bullets such as trying for that one magic court appointment. It’s the “holistic” approach that is really what’s important if our goal is to reduce the number of abortions rather than just “win” political games.

How many times have YOU heard someone talk about the “Supreme Court Justice” the next Conservative President will appoint?  You know, that magical Justice who will somehow tip the scales and remove Roe-v-wade from before our eyes?  Never mind the fact that Republican appointed Justices, as I’ve pointed out a few times, currently occupy 7 out of the 9 seats.  Never mind the fact that Republican appointed Justices made Roe v Wade a reality to begin with.  Yet, as Frank points out, the Republicans haven’t really changed things on the topic of abortion in 30 years.  And they won’t do so after this election, either!

I enjoyed this paragraph as well:

For all you sanctimonious Evangelicals out there, also note: when it comes to squeaky clean family values, Senator Obama — not Senator McCain — should be your role model. The Republican right wants us to draw back in horror from Obama because he is pro-choice, but this is the same group working to get a philanderer who abandoned his wife because she had a disfiguring accident, elected.

Have you read the stories about this?  I’ve read quite a few of them, from many different view points, but haven’t really said too much about it here on this blog.  Things are already stirred up amongst readers, because so many Christians still buy into the idea that real Christians must vote for the Republican Party.  Please do yourself a favor… find all the information you can about this topic.  Yes, John McCain is a war hero.  But he returned from that war to a wife who had been disfigured by an auto accident while he was gone, and he immediately began cheating on her, eventually leaving her for his current wife.

Frank Schaeffer sums up the reasons I plan to vote for Barack Obama with the first two sentences of this paragraph:

It isn’t just a matter of voting for Obama. Americans who want there to be a country left in which to argue our issues must vote against McCain. As his support for the Bush lies about Iraq shows McCain is hung up on his own version of post-Vietnam traumatic stress disorder. This is a man who would take our civilian culture down in flames and sacrifice it to his sense of death-or-glory military “honor.” How do you “win” a wrong war? McCain will make the world more dangerous. You think Bush was a cowboy? Just try McCain.

I’m NOT a Democrat.  I’m voting AGAINST McCain.  Barack Obama is simply the better of the two viable candidates we’ve been offered this election year.  What can we do to bring a third party into real contention?  Any ideas?  (or how about if all of us Christians write in a candidate, like Billy Graham for instance – tee hee).

The contrast could not have been more clear than on August 16 in the interview between pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church and Obama and McCain. Obama gave real and thoughtful answers, often trying to explore a moral question deeply. McCain offered nothing more than canned applause lines and anecdotes from his tired simplistic stump speech.

McCain fed pre-programed red meat to the Evangelical faithful who were packing the auditorium, but not much more. He parroted all the “right” lines about abortion, the same empty phrases Bush, parrots, Bush’s father parroted and Reagan and Ford parroted.

“When does life begin?” asked Warren. “At conception!” shot back McCain. The Evangelical crowd goes wild! See?! That’s our guy!

And where do the tired canned pro-life “correct answers” get us? Nowhere.

I agree.  100%.

I will be voting for Senator Obama and am fighting for his election because I am pro-life.

Me too, Frank.  Meeeeee tooooooo.

Please, dear Constant Reader, take the time to read the entire article:

Frank!  As a Former Pro-Life Leader How Dare You Support Pro-Choice Obama?

^^^ Just Do It: Click The Link ^^^

And then be sure to read this one too:

Why I’m Pro-Life and Pro-Obama

^^^ Just Do It: Click The Link ^^^

Heck, just read any number of Frank Schaeffer’s articles:

A Listing Of Frank’s Other Blog Posts

^^^ Just Do It: Click The Link ^^^

62 thoughts on “As a Former Pro-Life Leader How DARE You Support Pro-Choice Obama?

  1. I thought that the actions of a man is what he should be judged by.. not by what he says..

    Much the same what Christians should be doers… and not just hearers..

    God knows how often I fail at that.. it is a rule that I try to live by and how I judge people.. by their record of actions..

    Abortion is only one of many issues against why I’m voting against Barack…

    Nationalize Health Care.. it would increase taxes while rationing health care..

    Two former heads of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are his economic advisers..

    Barack is number 3 in pork barrel spending.. (number one is Biden) and gave a huge grant to the U. of Chicago Hospitable where his wife searves as a board of directors.. Same year, she received a 100 K raise..

    Ran through the gears of arguable the most corrupt political machine in the US.. then claims he’s going to try to ‘reform’ Washington DC..

    Has authored no bills during his 20 months in the US Senate before running for President.

    The few bills he has cosponsored has been passed through the senate without a floor vote.. It was all generally agreed upon that it would pass without any ‘nays’

    He is more that ‘passing acquaintances’ of unrepentant Bill Ayers from the ‘Weather Underground’. ( Do you know what Barack Obama and Osama Bin Ladin have in common? They both know someone who has blown up the pentagon… I know the joke is a distraction.. but I think it’s still funny, I don’t care who you are.. )

    his anti-gun stance is horrendous.. no matter what lip service he may give to hunters. It’s his record.

    Barack even said in one of his books that he serves as a Rorschach test so people can look at him and project what they want onto him..

  2. I thought that the actions of a man is what he should be judged by.. not by what he says..

    Much the same what Christians should be doers… and not just hearers..

    God knows how often I fail at that.. it is a rule that I try to live by and how I judge people.. by their record of actions..

    Abortion is only one of many issues against why I’m voting against Barack…

    Nationalize Health Care.. it would increase taxes while rationing health care..

    Two former heads of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are his economic advisers..

    Barack is number 3 in pork barrel spending.. (number one is Biden) and gave a huge grant to the U. of Chicago Hospitable where his wife searves as a board of directors.. Same year, she received a 100 K raise..

    Ran through the gears of arguable the most corrupt political machine in the US.. then claims he’s going to try to ‘reform’ Washington DC..

    Has authored no bills during his 20 months in the US Senate before running for President.

    The few bills he has cosponsored has been passed through the senate without a floor vote.. It was all generally agreed upon that it would pass without any ‘nays’

    He is more that ‘passing acquaintances’ of unrepentant Bill Ayers from the ‘Weather Underground’. ( Do you know what Barack Obama and Osama Bin Ladin have in common? They both know someone who has blown up the pentagon… I know the joke is a distraction.. but I think it’s still funny, I don’t care who you are.. )

    his anti-gun stance is horrendous.. no matter what lip service he may give to hunters. It’s his record.

    Barack even said in one of his books that he serves as a Rorschach test so people can look at him and project what they want onto him..

  3. Dave,

    Have you also taken a look at McCain? Seriously, now… he has lots of issues that need to be considered. And as for Fannie Mae, McCain received a lot of $$ from them too. McCain also has HOW many lobbyists as campaign advisors?

    Do your due diligence on both men.

    Dave, you said this:

    I thought that the actions of a man is what he should be judged by.. not by what he says..

    I agree. Check this out:

    The Wife John McCain Callously Left Behind

    John McCain’s First Wife Speaks Out

    She wasn’t so appealing anymore after that accident. He starts cheating. Actions. Actions. Actions, my friend.

    His actions even damaged his relationship with Ron and Nancy Reagan, it appears:

    check this out

  4. Dave,

    Have you also taken a look at McCain? Seriously, now… he has lots of issues that need to be considered. And as for Fannie Mae, McCain received a lot of $$ from them too. McCain also has HOW many lobbyists as campaign advisors?

    Do your due diligence on both men.

    Dave, you said this:

    I thought that the actions of a man is what he should be judged by.. not by what he says..

    I agree. Check this out:

    The Wife John McCain Callously Left Behind

    John McCain’s First Wife Speaks Out

    She wasn’t so appealing anymore after that accident. He starts cheating. Actions. Actions. Actions, my friend.

    His actions even damaged his relationship with Ron and Nancy Reagan, it appears:

    check this out

  5. This blog post comes off a bit… aggressive… but if one can keep from getting offended, he makes some really good points:

    An Open Letter to All Republicans From a Former Religious Right Activist

  6. This blog post comes off a bit… aggressive… but if one can keep from getting offended, he makes some really good points:

    An Open Letter to All Republicans From a Former Religious Right Activist

  7. Donny,
    Other than being upset with what the current Bush administration has done can you tell us what you like about Obama and why you are thinking of voting for him rather than why your voting anti McCain and republican.
    You seem to be for change but do you really believe that Obama is the best chance for change. If you just look at the facts everytime Obama has had a chance to make a decision reflecting change he chooses the old status quo. The number 1 problem right now is our economy fueled by the mortgage and banking crisis and look who he picks already. His VP choice is Biden who is known as the credit card senator because of his support of their bills and the money they have raised for him even employing his son as a lobbyist. Biden is also an entrenched senator who got no support when he ran for president and known for his big pork barrel spending. His two advisors on the economy are both from fannie/freddie who helped create this mess and cashed in and Obama himself has received almost the most money from them in 3 short yrs. I see no change here.
    McCain on the other hand has at least tried to fight for change, long before he ran for election to the point where it wasnt long ago most republicans didnt back him and thought of him almost as a democrat pretending to be republican. And whether you like Palin or not you can at least say that it was a move for change by nominating someone from outside washington. Im just wondering if you can really make the case for why you would elect Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin without mentioning anything from either party.

  8. Donny,
    Other than being upset with what the current Bush administration has done can you tell us what you like about Obama and why you are thinking of voting for him rather than why your voting anti McCain and republican.
    You seem to be for change but do you really believe that Obama is the best chance for change. If you just look at the facts everytime Obama has had a chance to make a decision reflecting change he chooses the old status quo. The number 1 problem right now is our economy fueled by the mortgage and banking crisis and look who he picks already. His VP choice is Biden who is known as the credit card senator because of his support of their bills and the money they have raised for him even employing his son as a lobbyist. Biden is also an entrenched senator who got no support when he ran for president and known for his big pork barrel spending. His two advisors on the economy are both from fannie/freddie who helped create this mess and cashed in and Obama himself has received almost the most money from them in 3 short yrs. I see no change here.
    McCain on the other hand has at least tried to fight for change, long before he ran for election to the point where it wasnt long ago most republicans didnt back him and thought of him almost as a democrat pretending to be republican. And whether you like Palin or not you can at least say that it was a move for change by nominating someone from outside washington. Im just wondering if you can really make the case for why you would elect Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin without mentioning anything from either party.

  9. DT,

    One reason I’m voting for Barack Obama is because I believe (as Frank also states in his letter) that Obama cares more about life in general than does his opponent. I believe that abortions will actually GO DOWN with Obama as President because his administration will work on the ROOT of the problem more than his opponent.

    Another reason is because change is something that a leader INSPIRES in PEOPLE. John McCain isn’t going to inspire anyone to get up off their duff and change anything, whereas Barack Obama is more likely to do so. You and I, and all the citizens of this country, need someone to motivate us. Whether or not you agree with Obama, I think he’ll motivate more of us to actually get out and do something.

    The mortgage and banking crisis is mostly the fault of the policies of our current administration, and John McCain continues that administration. He agrees with President Bush on almost everything. By his OWN mouth, he claims to have sided with President Bush 90% of the time.

    Obama’s “money from Freddie Mac” came from the employees of Freddie Mac contributing to him. Seriously, that was a ridiculous thing to bring up.

    McCain has changed a lot to suit the members of his party. That is not “maverick”, that’s desperation to get elected.

    His choice of Palin as Vice President demonstrates he isn’t thinking too clearly. Why else would he pick a person who went to 5 schools before receiving a degree in Journalism, who hadn’t received a passport until last year, who was the mayor of a town of 7000 people until less than two years ago, who’s currently the governor of a state with a lower population than many of the cities in this country, who is accused of abusing her power? Yeah, she might be a “real” person, but she is just not ready to run a country. And McCain choosing her after speaking with her for 15 minutes doesn’t really show much in the way of good judgment.

  10. DT,

    One reason I’m voting for Barack Obama is because I believe (as Frank also states in his letter) that Obama cares more about life in general than does his opponent. I believe that abortions will actually GO DOWN with Obama as President because his administration will work on the ROOT of the problem more than his opponent.

    Another reason is because change is something that a leader INSPIRES in PEOPLE. John McCain isn’t going to inspire anyone to get up off their duff and change anything, whereas Barack Obama is more likely to do so. You and I, and all the citizens of this country, need someone to motivate us. Whether or not you agree with Obama, I think he’ll motivate more of us to actually get out and do something.

    The mortgage and banking crisis is mostly the fault of the policies of our current administration, and John McCain continues that administration. He agrees with President Bush on almost everything. By his OWN mouth, he claims to have sided with President Bush 90% of the time.

    Obama’s “money from Freddie Mac” came from the employees of Freddie Mac contributing to him. Seriously, that was a ridiculous thing to bring up.

    McCain has changed a lot to suit the members of his party. That is not “maverick”, that’s desperation to get elected.

    His choice of Palin as Vice President demonstrates he isn’t thinking too clearly. Why else would he pick a person who went to 5 schools before receiving a degree in Journalism, who hadn’t received a passport until last year, who was the mayor of a town of 7000 people until less than two years ago, who’s currently the governor of a state with a lower population than many of the cities in this country, who is accused of abusing her power? Yeah, she might be a “real” person, but she is just not ready to run a country. And McCain choosing her after speaking with her for 15 minutes doesn’t really show much in the way of good judgment.

  11. “Frank and his family helped establish the Pro-Life Movement”

    No. His Father did. Frank is just taking credit for all his father’s fine pro-life work in one breath, and throwing it all away for Obama in the next. The apple has fallen very far from the tree. The sad thing, of course, is that he is trading on his father’s name.

    Back in the late 70’s I attended a weekend seminar with Dr. Koop and Dr. Schaeffer. Frankie was nowhere to be seen. His part came when his dad let him make a video series out of the book and the lecture. He was in no way an originator of the movement.

    Schaeffer has also taken the position that being “pro-life” also means being anti-war—so why wasn’t he gung-ho for Ron Paul?

    “As you know I was a lifelong Republican”

    As Frank CONSTANTLY reminds us. He uses that phrase, (former) “lifelong Republican”, in reference to himself. He uses it practically in every single article he writes. He’s like the guy in the bar, the first time you meet him he tells you his war stories, about his heroics, his veteran status, etc. You take him at his word the first time. The next week, same place, again he tells you the same war stories, reminding you of his veteran status. And so on the next week and the next. To the point you finally begin to doubt him. It’s the same with Frank. He uses that “lifelong Republican” phrase so often, I am beginning to doubt him.

    He reminds me of this quote from Hamlet:

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

    Was he a registered Republican? Perhaps. But not lifelong, and apparently, was never a true believer in the party platform.

  12. “Frank and his family helped establish the Pro-Life Movement”

    No. His Father did. Frank is just taking credit for all his father’s fine pro-life work in one breath, and throwing it all away for Obama in the next. The apple has fallen very far from the tree. The sad thing, of course, is that he is trading on his father’s name.

    Back in the late 70’s I attended a weekend seminar with Dr. Koop and Dr. Schaeffer. Frankie was nowhere to be seen. His part came when his dad let him make a video series out of the book and the lecture. He was in no way an originator of the movement.

    Schaeffer has also taken the position that being “pro-life” also means being anti-war—so why wasn’t he gung-ho for Ron Paul?

    “As you know I was a lifelong Republican”

    As Frank CONSTANTLY reminds us. He uses that phrase, (former) “lifelong Republican”, in reference to himself. He uses it practically in every single article he writes. He’s like the guy in the bar, the first time you meet him he tells you his war stories, about his heroics, his veteran status, etc. You take him at his word the first time. The next week, same place, again he tells you the same war stories, reminding you of his veteran status. And so on the next week and the next. To the point you finally begin to doubt him. It’s the same with Frank. He uses that “lifelong Republican” phrase so often, I am beginning to doubt him.

    He reminds me of this quote from Hamlet:

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

    Was he a registered Republican? Perhaps. But not lifelong, and apparently, was never a true believer in the party platform.

  13. Amy,

    It’s quite easy to be dismissive when someone is putting out opinions that one doesn’t agree with. But being that his father was… well… his father, I think I’ll take Frank’s word on what he says his father believed as well as his level of involvement with his father’s work.

    As for being a life long Republican:
    I totally disagree with your assessment that constantly repeating that somehow negates the truth of his statement. I’ll likely bring that up quite often too. You know why? Because many people ignorantly dismiss a person’s views if for example they think you’re “liberal” or a “Democrat”. Every time the polls were open, I voted Republican until the 2004 election be it national, state, or regional. I like to bring this up when discussing a topic, and intend to continue doing so.

  14. Amy,

    It’s quite easy to be dismissive when someone is putting out opinions that one doesn’t agree with. But being that his father was… well… his father, I think I’ll take Frank’s word on what he says his father believed as well as his level of involvement with his father’s work.

    As for being a life long Republican:
    I totally disagree with your assessment that constantly repeating that somehow negates the truth of his statement. I’ll likely bring that up quite often too. You know why? Because many people ignorantly dismiss a person’s views if for example they think you’re “liberal” or a “Democrat”. Every time the polls were open, I voted Republican until the 2004 election be it national, state, or regional. I like to bring this up when discussing a topic, and intend to continue doing so.

  15. Have you seen this? I think even Obama would crack up over it!

  16. Have you seen this? I think even Obama would crack up over it!

  17. Nancy,

    That was amusing. 🙂

    – Donny –

  18. Nancy,

    That was amusing. 🙂

    – Donny –

  19. that ‘life long republican’ about Frank Schaeffer throw some red flags up for me too.. I cry shenanigans on that..

    As for the two main canidate running for office..
    I’m not really all that happy with either of them.. I thought I was going for LOTE when I voted for Mitt Romney.. after McCain locked up the nomination, I was going to vote 3rd party.. (Bob Barr was looking pretty good) when McCain tapped Palin as his VP, that is what brought be back on board.. I’ve heard of her long before she was nominated (have some relatives up in Alaska) and have heard nothing but good things about her. She ran on a reform ticket.. went up against Democrats (Tony Knowles) and Republicans (damn, the name escapes me..) and opened up the closed door dealing with the big oil companies..
    The Barracuda left the trail of figurative bodies in her wake… And if she does the same in DC.. she has all my support.

    As for McCain.. I want to add some context.. this happened soon after he was released as a POW.. for FIVE years… a man isn’t the same man after that.. I’m not justifying it.. context.

    McCain’s actions as a Senator, refusing any wasteful pork barrel spending…. he hasn’t taken any of it..

    the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’.. both Barack and Biden voted to approve that.. there was even a notion to shift the funds to the Katrina victims but that got tabled and both Barack and Biden voted again to fund the bridge..

    McCain in running on a platform to reduce wasteful spending in Washington.. and his record and actions back that up.

  20. that ‘life long republican’ about Frank Schaeffer throw some red flags up for me too.. I cry shenanigans on that..

    As for the two main canidate running for office..
    I’m not really all that happy with either of them.. I thought I was going for LOTE when I voted for Mitt Romney.. after McCain locked up the nomination, I was going to vote 3rd party.. (Bob Barr was looking pretty good) when McCain tapped Palin as his VP, that is what brought be back on board.. I’ve heard of her long before she was nominated (have some relatives up in Alaska) and have heard nothing but good things about her. She ran on a reform ticket.. went up against Democrats (Tony Knowles) and Republicans (damn, the name escapes me..) and opened up the closed door dealing with the big oil companies..
    The Barracuda left the trail of figurative bodies in her wake… And if she does the same in DC.. she has all my support.

    As for McCain.. I want to add some context.. this happened soon after he was released as a POW.. for FIVE years… a man isn’t the same man after that.. I’m not justifying it.. context.

    McCain’s actions as a Senator, refusing any wasteful pork barrel spending…. he hasn’t taken any of it..

    the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’.. both Barack and Biden voted to approve that.. there was even a notion to shift the funds to the Katrina victims but that got tabled and both Barack and Biden voted again to fund the bridge..

    McCain in running on a platform to reduce wasteful spending in Washington.. and his record and actions back that up.

  21. Sarah supported the “Bridge to Nowhere”, Dave. She only began opposing it after it was a moot point.

  22. Sarah supported the “Bridge to Nowhere”, Dave. She only began opposing it after it was a moot point.

  23. “Obama’s “money from Freddie Mac” came from the employees of Freddie Mac contributing to him.”

    As I understand it, the freddie mac money to Obama came from both corporate executives and from the freddie mac PAC. Its the PAC to which both corporate funds AND individual contributions by employees are made.

    “I totally disagree with your assessment that constantly repeating that somehow negates the truth of his statement”

    Thats NOT my assessment. I never said that him repeating it over and over again negated his statement. I merely said it makes me suspicious. That I am beginning to doubt him on that.

    That aside, for crying out loud, how many times is he going to remind us of him being a “lifelong Republican”??? Do a google search on the words “lifelong republican” and “frank schaeffer”. It’s amazing how often he uses that phrase, how he works it into practically eveyr article he writes. He just abuses the priviledge, even if he was one (which I kind of doubt)

  24. “Obama’s “money from Freddie Mac” came from the employees of Freddie Mac contributing to him.”

    As I understand it, the freddie mac money to Obama came from both corporate executives and from the freddie mac PAC. Its the PAC to which both corporate funds AND individual contributions by employees are made.

    “I totally disagree with your assessment that constantly repeating that somehow negates the truth of his statement”

    Thats NOT my assessment. I never said that him repeating it over and over again negated his statement. I merely said it makes me suspicious. That I am beginning to doubt him on that.

    That aside, for crying out loud, how many times is he going to remind us of him being a “lifelong Republican”??? Do a google search on the words “lifelong republican” and “frank schaeffer”. It’s amazing how often he uses that phrase, how he works it into practically eveyr article he writes. He just abuses the priviledge, even if he was one (which I kind of doubt)

  25. An exerpt from Senator Jim DeMint in the Wall Street Journal about Sarah and the Bridge..

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

    Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state’s history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska’s budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were “not a state responsibility.”

    Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor’s center in Louisiana.

    Mrs. Palin cut Alaska’s federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska’s decades-long earmark addiction.

    Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.

    Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation’s budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

    When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys’ club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

  26. An exerpt from Senator Jim DeMint in the Wall Street Journal about Sarah and the Bridge..

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

    Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state’s history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska’s budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were “not a state responsibility.”

    Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor’s center in Louisiana.

    Mrs. Palin cut Alaska’s federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska’s decades-long earmark addiction.

    Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.

    Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation’s budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

    When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys’ club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

  27. What about Obama not respecting the pledge of allegience or not giving a straight convincing answer of his faith. I’m not sold on either one, get a bad feeling in my spirit from Obama, a good one from Palin. At least I know who she believes in.

  28. What about Obama not respecting the pledge of allegience or not giving a straight convincing answer of his faith. I’m not sold on either one, get a bad feeling in my spirit from Obama, a good one from Palin. At least I know who she believes in.

  29. I’m a registered democrat, but I always vote for whoever I like best. I strongly oppose voting strictly republican for the mere sake of voting “Christian”. Something about that seems wrong.

    I will be voting for McCain this November. Something about Obama creeps me out.

    I also think it’s unfair to judge the reason why a relationship failed when we don’t know either McCain or his ex-wife personally. It’s really easy to think we know what happened when we really don’t know for sure. Sometimes things are much more complicated.

  30. I’m a registered democrat, but I always vote for whoever I like best. I strongly oppose voting strictly republican for the mere sake of voting “Christian”. Something about that seems wrong.

    I will be voting for McCain this November. Something about Obama creeps me out.

    I also think it’s unfair to judge the reason why a relationship failed when we don’t know either McCain or his ex-wife personally. It’s really easy to think we know what happened when we really don’t know for sure. Sometimes things are much more complicated.

  31. Stare Decisis is an important legal concept, but it’s far from absolute.

    Ever heard of Brown v. Board of Education, perhaps the most famous overturned ruling? How did we get that ruling? What about the president set by Plessy v. Ferguson? Even FDR had most of his New Deal overturned by the courts initially until he was able to pack the court. In the process, he tried to get approval for more justices on the court for this specific objective (the number of justices on the court has changed several times). Brown v. Board of Education isn’t an exception. Overturned precedents happened hundreds (perhaps thousands) of times throughout the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts’ histories. It happens even with the new Bush appointees:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21memo.html

    If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the federal government could pass a law that bans abortions in all states (not with Democrats in charge, of course). Abortions would still happen, just as homicides of adults do, but at least our system of justice wouldn’t be as big a joke as it is now when it allows children to be killed at the will of their mothers. Stare Decisis does not change if the law changes. For Roe v. Wade, it would certainly change under a constitutional amendment. If everyone who professed to be pro-life voted and strictly voted that way, this would be more than simply feasible. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305456,00.html

    However, pro-lifers don’t, so we’re stuck with the status quo even the point where people in the pro-life movement are tossing their hands up in defeat.

    Also, Donny, just because a person seems to care more about people doesn’t mean they will do a better job of caring for people. I’ve seen medics who are rude and obnoxious who know their stuff cold and saved lives. You need to look at policy proposals and ask what that will do. I think you would enjoy this article http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809u/mccain-economics It even talks about evolution in a way I think you’d appreciate. I’d like to draw your attention to the end of the article where it talks about health care. It doesn’t sound, feel, or look very loving at it’s surface. I’m not just making a point about health care; I’m also making a point about a policy difference between the two were one seems more caring for others but the other is at least as caring even though it doesn’t initially seem that way. There is a consensus among economists that free trade will help out the poorest of the poor people on earth. I’ve even written unpublished academic papers on how trade barriers affect the market for child labor (even the market for child prostitution) in a way that’s very bad for poor children. Contrary to the consensus about trade and how it benefits poor people, Obama has come out as highly protectionist.

    Even on something like the minimum wage, it seems like raising it would care for more poor people, right? Well… maybe not http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm In fact, poor people stand to lose the most from a binding wage floor (i.e. minimum wage) due to the increased unemployment from decreased economic marginal production or substitution for capital over labor.

    Again, the point isn’t just about the minimum wage. The point is that there are often policies that can look cold and harsh on the surface, like shots and cold medicine. However, many of these policies might be what the doctor ordered to help. When it comes to economics, the Republicans have been leading the way on the items that attack global poverty (especially with Bush on the Doha rounds of trade talks). I want to mention that partially to attack the idea that Obama will attack the root causes of abortion. If it’s poverty, why does Western Europe (with policies that are similar to democrat proposals on employment) typically have double our unemployment rate? Their rates are higher because it’s so risky to hire someone unless you can keep them long-term. That makes the nature of unemployment long-term (one of the key reasons for the riots in France a few years ago). The US has welfare programs to cover children, there’s more than 2 million families waiting to adopt, and there are policies where a person can leave a newborn child at a hospital with no questions asked. I doubt Obama and Dems will reduce abortions over the long-run as much as McCain will. The Dems don’t even want to have children have to notify their parents before they get abortions (can’t drink a beer but mature enough to get an abortion?), and Obama voted against the born-alive infants act (where children accidentally born during an abortion are protected from being killed). Obama cares more about people? I just don’t buy it.

  32. Stare Decisis is an important legal concept, but it’s far from absolute.

    Ever heard of Brown v. Board of Education, perhaps the most famous overturned ruling? How did we get that ruling? What about the president set by Plessy v. Ferguson? Even FDR had most of his New Deal overturned by the courts initially until he was able to pack the court. In the process, he tried to get approval for more justices on the court for this specific objective (the number of justices on the court has changed several times). Brown v. Board of Education isn’t an exception. Overturned precedents happened hundreds (perhaps thousands) of times throughout the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts’ histories. It happens even with the new Bush appointees:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21memo.html

    If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the federal government could pass a law that bans abortions in all states (not with Democrats in charge, of course). Abortions would still happen, just as homicides of adults do, but at least our system of justice wouldn’t be as big a joke as it is now when it allows children to be killed at the will of their mothers. Stare Decisis does not change if the law changes. For Roe v. Wade, it would certainly change under a constitutional amendment. If everyone who professed to be pro-life voted and strictly voted that way, this would be more than simply feasible. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305456,00.html

    However, pro-lifers don’t, so we’re stuck with the status quo even the point where people in the pro-life movement are tossing their hands up in defeat.

    Also, Donny, just because a person seems to care more about people doesn’t mean they will do a better job of caring for people. I’ve seen medics who are rude and obnoxious who know their stuff cold and saved lives. You need to look at policy proposals and ask what that will do. I think you would enjoy this article http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809u/mccain-economics It even talks about evolution in a way I think you’d appreciate. I’d like to draw your attention to the end of the article where it talks about health care. It doesn’t sound, feel, or look very loving at it’s surface. I’m not just making a point about health care; I’m also making a point about a policy difference between the two were one seems more caring for others but the other is at least as caring even though it doesn’t initially seem that way. There is a consensus among economists that free trade will help out the poorest of the poor people on earth. I’ve even written unpublished academic papers on how trade barriers affect the market for child labor (even the market for child prostitution) in a way that’s very bad for poor children. Contrary to the consensus about trade and how it benefits poor people, Obama has come out as highly protectionist.

    Even on something like the minimum wage, it seems like raising it would care for more poor people, right? Well… maybe not http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm In fact, poor people stand to lose the most from a binding wage floor (i.e. minimum wage) due to the increased unemployment from decreased economic marginal production or substitution for capital over labor.

    Again, the point isn’t just about the minimum wage. The point is that there are often policies that can look cold and harsh on the surface, like shots and cold medicine. However, many of these policies might be what the doctor ordered to help. When it comes to economics, the Republicans have been leading the way on the items that attack global poverty (especially with Bush on the Doha rounds of trade talks). I want to mention that partially to attack the idea that Obama will attack the root causes of abortion. If it’s poverty, why does Western Europe (with policies that are similar to democrat proposals on employment) typically have double our unemployment rate? Their rates are higher because it’s so risky to hire someone unless you can keep them long-term. That makes the nature of unemployment long-term (one of the key reasons for the riots in France a few years ago). The US has welfare programs to cover children, there’s more than 2 million families waiting to adopt, and there are policies where a person can leave a newborn child at a hospital with no questions asked. I doubt Obama and Dems will reduce abortions over the long-run as much as McCain will. The Dems don’t even want to have children have to notify their parents before they get abortions (can’t drink a beer but mature enough to get an abortion?), and Obama voted against the born-alive infants act (where children accidentally born during an abortion are protected from being killed). Obama cares more about people? I just don’t buy it.

  33. Jeremy,

    Thanks for taking the time to write out that comment. I’m reading through the links you sent right now.

    Also, I just finished a long conversation with a highly intelligent individual I greatly respect and he gave me a lot of food for thought, too. It was an enlightening conversation.

    As for Obama and the born-alive act… what Obama has stated is that he didn’t like some of the things that were packaged in with that bill. My friend from today’s conversation says that has been rebutted, and I plan to look into it.

    Thanks again,

    Donny

  34. Jeremy,

    Thanks for taking the time to write out that comment. I’m reading through the links you sent right now.

    Also, I just finished a long conversation with a highly intelligent individual I greatly respect and he gave me a lot of food for thought, too. It was an enlightening conversation.

    As for Obama and the born-alive act… what Obama has stated is that he didn’t like some of the things that were packaged in with that bill. My friend from today’s conversation says that has been rebutted, and I plan to look into it.

    Thanks again,

    Donny

  35. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session

    If the link works, it should show the full text of the born-alive bill that Obama voted to kill in committee in the Illinois Senate.

    The text was tight enough to not even go against partial-birth abortions. I could be missing a detail, but it looks like a completely clean bill.

  36. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session

    If the link works, it should show the full text of the born-alive bill that Obama voted to kill in committee in the Illinois Senate.

    The text was tight enough to not even go against partial-birth abortions. I could be missing a detail, but it looks like a completely clean bill.

  37. Donny,
    I would just like to state on your comment regarding the money from freddie/fannie being ridiculous I think you need to take a closer look at those employee contributions. Anyone in a big fortune 500 company like that will tell you that generally what happens is the employer comes to you and says he we want everyone to contribute to this pac and generally they even make it easy for you to contribute through payroll contributions. Although its strictly voluntary its shall we say highly encouraged usually especially in management and I have personal experience with this through companies I have worked for. Also, as stated above many of his contributions came directly for the executives as part of the pac. Also, lets not discount the main thing to look at with that is look who is advisors are they are the former leaders of those companies that they ran into the ground. The fact that Bush was asleep at the wheel and they didnt do a good job monitoring those policies doesnt minimize who Obama is listening to. Now I do agree McCain isnt a great person on the economy either but Obama is just as bad or worse. So when faced with that I error with the person who will stay out of the way the most not the one who will try to create bigger government. Which brings me to you saying you support Obama because he inspires people to do things. Obama doesnt want you to do things or I to do things other than vote for him. What he wants is to create bigger government, take more of our money, and do things with it FOR US. I will be the first to say that McCain isnt the greatest speaker or motivator, but I firmly believe Palin will inspire many more people in the long run especially women. If you look at their personal lives look which family is more generous with their time, money and volunteering. Take a good look at how Cindy McCain spends her time and what she does vs. Obama’s wife. Lots of things can get spun politicaly one way or the other but the fact is McCain has for years refused pork barrel money for his state and constantly fought to wasteful spending. Palin made drastic cuts to the Alaska budget in regards to waste and pork barrel money. Biden has been known as one of the biggest spenders and so is Obama. This election when it comes down to it is about whether you feel you want to pay more in taxes and have government bigger and spend more money to solve problems, or do you want less government spending and lower taxes. Now this may be drastic to make my point but if we keep paying more and more in taxes and relying on goverment more and more are we really a free country with a free economy or are we becoming more like a communist country? Personally all I want is for government to make sure we have equal opportunity and not equal results, keep us safe and protect us from those who would do us harm, and let me decide how to spend the money I earn in the best way for me and my family rather than taking it from me to use as they want. Personally I am not that happy with many things of the Bush administration especially during his second term, however Obama isnt the answer. My question to you Donny would be to you fundamentaly believe that you pay too many taxes, and that government is too involved in your life, or do you think you would be better paying more taxes and having them more involved. Do you think government wastes money on projects that benefit very few and the rich get richer sort of speak or do you believe that government uses our money wisely and spends it on things that truly benefit everyone? And if you believe that government needs to spend less and waste less do you think Obama/Biden given his voting history is more likely to make that happen or do you think McCain/Palin are more likely to reduce spending and waste?

  38. Donny,
    I would just like to state on your comment regarding the money from freddie/fannie being ridiculous I think you need to take a closer look at those employee contributions. Anyone in a big fortune 500 company like that will tell you that generally what happens is the employer comes to you and says he we want everyone to contribute to this pac and generally they even make it easy for you to contribute through payroll contributions. Although its strictly voluntary its shall we say highly encouraged usually especially in management and I have personal experience with this through companies I have worked for. Also, as stated above many of his contributions came directly for the executives as part of the pac. Also, lets not discount the main thing to look at with that is look who is advisors are they are the former leaders of those companies that they ran into the ground. The fact that Bush was asleep at the wheel and they didnt do a good job monitoring those policies doesnt minimize who Obama is listening to. Now I do agree McCain isnt a great person on the economy either but Obama is just as bad or worse. So when faced with that I error with the person who will stay out of the way the most not the one who will try to create bigger government. Which brings me to you saying you support Obama because he inspires people to do things. Obama doesnt want you to do things or I to do things other than vote for him. What he wants is to create bigger government, take more of our money, and do things with it FOR US. I will be the first to say that McCain isnt the greatest speaker or motivator, but I firmly believe Palin will inspire many more people in the long run especially women. If you look at their personal lives look which family is more generous with their time, money and volunteering. Take a good look at how Cindy McCain spends her time and what she does vs. Obama’s wife. Lots of things can get spun politicaly one way or the other but the fact is McCain has for years refused pork barrel money for his state and constantly fought to wasteful spending. Palin made drastic cuts to the Alaska budget in regards to waste and pork barrel money. Biden has been known as one of the biggest spenders and so is Obama. This election when it comes down to it is about whether you feel you want to pay more in taxes and have government bigger and spend more money to solve problems, or do you want less government spending and lower taxes. Now this may be drastic to make my point but if we keep paying more and more in taxes and relying on goverment more and more are we really a free country with a free economy or are we becoming more like a communist country? Personally all I want is for government to make sure we have equal opportunity and not equal results, keep us safe and protect us from those who would do us harm, and let me decide how to spend the money I earn in the best way for me and my family rather than taking it from me to use as they want. Personally I am not that happy with many things of the Bush administration especially during his second term, however Obama isnt the answer. My question to you Donny would be to you fundamentaly believe that you pay too many taxes, and that government is too involved in your life, or do you think you would be better paying more taxes and having them more involved. Do you think government wastes money on projects that benefit very few and the rich get richer sort of speak or do you believe that government uses our money wisely and spends it on things that truly benefit everyone? And if you believe that government needs to spend less and waste less do you think Obama/Biden given his voting history is more likely to make that happen or do you think McCain/Palin are more likely to reduce spending and waste?

  39. well it constantly seems that with obama, he NEVER votes pro-life. its always the excuse that the wording or some other thing in the bill is not as complete as hed like it. i dont buy it. anyone who has an invite from planned parenthood to come speak is NOT pro life in any way shape or form. he probably has those people in his pocket or their vote.

    and id also like to know what the difference is between obama and a secularist
    secularists have morals without God as the fixed point of reference.

    he wants to help the poor

    but so do secularists

    he wants to have universal healthcare

    so also do some secularists

    you dont have to be a christ follower to want any of that

    what makes obama distinctly christian?

  40. well it constantly seems that with obama, he NEVER votes pro-life. its always the excuse that the wording or some other thing in the bill is not as complete as hed like it. i dont buy it. anyone who has an invite from planned parenthood to come speak is NOT pro life in any way shape or form. he probably has those people in his pocket or their vote.

    and id also like to know what the difference is between obama and a secularist
    secularists have morals without God as the fixed point of reference.

    he wants to help the poor

    but so do secularists

    he wants to have universal healthcare

    so also do some secularists

    you dont have to be a christ follower to want any of that

    what makes obama distinctly christian?

  41. JEREMY you should also come hang out at the “richard dawkins” blog entry that donny posted last month.

    you seem very measured and reasoned in your responses

    theres a gentleman named chris whos looking for engagement

    i just havent had the time to respond to his questions. but its been fun

    thanks!

  42. JEREMY you should also come hang out at the “richard dawkins” blog entry that donny posted last month.

    you seem very measured and reasoned in your responses

    theres a gentleman named chris whos looking for engagement

    i just havent had the time to respond to his questions. but its been fun

    thanks!

  43. DT,

    You make more than $250,000 per year, then? Because Obama’s plan only raises taxes on those who make more than that.

    What Obama wants to do is restore tax levels to where they were at before Dubya took office. And those making less than $250,000 per year will actually see a tax DECREASE, from everything I’ve read.

  44. DT,

    You make more than $250,000 per year, then? Because Obama’s plan only raises taxes on those who make more than that.

    What Obama wants to do is restore tax levels to where they were at before Dubya took office. And those making less than $250,000 per year will actually see a tax DECREASE, from everything I’ve read.

  45. Sharon Osbourne cracks me up with her thoughts on Palin:

  46. Sharon Osbourne cracks me up with her thoughts on Palin:

  47. The few people that I know that do make the 250,000 K a year..

    They are employers..

    I call them ‘Boss’..

    Obama can’t raise taxes ‘only’ on them.. the effect will trickle down.. it’s how our economy works..

  48. The few people that I know that do make the 250,000 K a year..

    They are employers..

    I call them ‘Boss’..

    Obama can’t raise taxes ‘only’ on them.. the effect will trickle down.. it’s how our economy works..

  49. I think you ought to apply a biblical principal to the tax system using the parable of the talents. The better you are with making money the less taxes paid. Instead we have a different system. The better you are with your money the higher percentage you have to pay out. That does not encourage people to want to start new businesses to create more jobs for those who have no desire, but to punch a clock and go home. I’m not saying that the wealthy don’t find ways to abuse, but paying 40-50% of what is earned seems wrong. actually the right kind of consumption tax is better, but our wonderful pork barrel politicians would never go for it.

  50. I think you ought to apply a biblical principal to the tax system using the parable of the talents. The better you are with making money the less taxes paid. Instead we have a different system. The better you are with your money the higher percentage you have to pay out. That does not encourage people to want to start new businesses to create more jobs for those who have no desire, but to punch a clock and go home. I’m not saying that the wealthy don’t find ways to abuse, but paying 40-50% of what is earned seems wrong. actually the right kind of consumption tax is better, but our wonderful pork barrel politicians would never go for it.

  51. Donny,
    I have been at all levels of the income spectrum from making 15k a yr to yes making over 250k a year. Although this year with the economy its definately taken a big hit out of what I will clear this year. Since I am self employed with employees just as you are I think I also have an understanding how taxes affect business and people as well. I would say look not at what Obama says about raising taxes on the wealthy only but look at what he has voted for which is tax increases of all kinds. When he increases payroll taxes, or raises the limit on social security tax, or they increase the medi-care tax to pay for all of these programs it not only affects the employee but the employer pays more as well which limits money available for raises or other investments in people. I also remember him discussing his plan and I think his defination of rich was not the rich but someone making 100 or 150k I dont remember the exact number off hand. If I remember correctly the 250k number was a stretch to sound good. Well after taxes, housepayments, sending kids to college etc although that is not poor its certainly not rich. The reality is the people who pay all the taxes are not the rich because they will be able to hide their money or invest it in ways to not get taxed and its not the poor its the middle class who is getting the burden. I dont know if your aware but people right now who make less than 30,000 a yr with children under our current tax system not only almost always get all of the taxes back they pay in but many times with child tax credits and earned income credits receive additional money back they didnt even pay in. Most people who you and I would consider wealthy get their money from investments, or business they own which are generally funneled through vehicles such as s corps and llc’s to minimize taxes or that get taxed at a flat rate like capitol gains. Those who are struggling as you and I put it are generally not paying much in taxes and are getting that all back. It has been and always will be the middle class who get w-2 income trying to raise families and secure their future who bear the biggest tax burden. I think if you look at actually what Obama has voted for and not said and really look at his plan I think you will realize that his whole only raising taxes on the rich and lowering it on the middle class is the same tired thing Democrats say everytime. If you however check the voting records of McCain you will see he almost always votes for less taxes. I will be the first to admit both mccain and obama like almost all politicians stretch what they say to make themselves sound better and stretch their accomplishments etc. I would say just look at the voting record. The one thing I would say though is if you look at it logically you cant grow government like he wants yet decrease taxes. If you really want to decrease taxes you have to decrease spending and waste. Also, I would point out when you hear I just want to take tax levels back to where they were before W think back to when the type of tax structure Obama is proposing was in place. Those were the Carter years. Now thats a perfect example of a guy who cared more about people much like you say about Obama and someone I would say is a good man but yet a completely inept president. If you also look historically at how much we pay in taxes as a percentage of income and factor in sales tax, payroll taxes, state taxes, etc etc we now pay a much higher percentage than people did 50 years ago yet we have much more national debt and less to show for it. Housing and healthy insurance and basic necessaties take a higher percentage of the average persons wages than they did back then.(Both of those are facts that can be easily looked up and are well documented) So I would say our problem isnt that we need more taxes or that we even need more from the rich. OUR PROBLEM FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS IN OUR ECONOMY AND WASHINGTON IS OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING THAT HAS INCREASED YEAR AFTER YEAR WITH NO REGARD TO HOW MUCH REVENUE WE HAVE, OUR INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND LAYERS OF RED TAPE AND REDUNDENCY IN DEPARTMENTS THAT TRULY ARE NOT NEEDED. THERE JUST IS NO REASON THAT WASHINGTON SHOULD BE SPENDING MONEY FOR PROJECTS LIKE A BASEBALL STADIUM OR BICYCLE PATHS OR VISITORS CENTERS IN LOUSIANA THAT SHOULD BE DECIDED AND PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE IN THOSE LOCATIONS WHO WILL BENEFIT. WASHINGTON SHOULD ONLY SPEND MONEY ON THINGS THAT AFFECT AND BENEFIT THE ENTIRE NATION NOT GROUPS OR SEGMENTS WHO LOBBY THE BEST. To me only McCain/Palin can honestly make a claim and have the track record and voting record to be able to truly say they will try to change that. Obama/Biden have always voted to participate in the scratch my back ill scratch yours spend spend spend. They have never met a spending bill they didnt like. Its all in the voting records. If you want to know what Obama will govern like take a good hard look at Biden and the skeletons in his closet. There is a reason this man could never get serious consideration for president even though he has run several times. Look at how much the Clintons are distancing themselves and almost backhandedly supporting McCain/Palin. You have Hillary saying nice things about Palin and defending her. You have Bill coming out and saying good things about her husband and that he is impressed with him. Obama only has one thing going for him in this election and thats George Bush. Personally I’m looking forward to the debates because Obama has never been asked the hard questions and it will be interesting to see how he responds.

  52. Donny,
    I have been at all levels of the income spectrum from making 15k a yr to yes making over 250k a year. Although this year with the economy its definately taken a big hit out of what I will clear this year. Since I am self employed with employees just as you are I think I also have an understanding how taxes affect business and people as well. I would say look not at what Obama says about raising taxes on the wealthy only but look at what he has voted for which is tax increases of all kinds. When he increases payroll taxes, or raises the limit on social security tax, or they increase the medi-care tax to pay for all of these programs it not only affects the employee but the employer pays more as well which limits money available for raises or other investments in people. I also remember him discussing his plan and I think his defination of rich was not the rich but someone making 100 or 150k I dont remember the exact number off hand. If I remember correctly the 250k number was a stretch to sound good. Well after taxes, housepayments, sending kids to college etc although that is not poor its certainly not rich. The reality is the people who pay all the taxes are not the rich because they will be able to hide their money or invest it in ways to not get taxed and its not the poor its the middle class who is getting the burden. I dont know if your aware but people right now who make less than 30,000 a yr with children under our current tax system not only almost always get all of the taxes back they pay in but many times with child tax credits and earned income credits receive additional money back they didnt even pay in. Most people who you and I would consider wealthy get their money from investments, or business they own which are generally funneled through vehicles such as s corps and llc’s to minimize taxes or that get taxed at a flat rate like capitol gains. Those who are struggling as you and I put it are generally not paying much in taxes and are getting that all back. It has been and always will be the middle class who get w-2 income trying to raise families and secure their future who bear the biggest tax burden. I think if you look at actually what Obama has voted for and not said and really look at his plan I think you will realize that his whole only raising taxes on the rich and lowering it on the middle class is the same tired thing Democrats say everytime. If you however check the voting records of McCain you will see he almost always votes for less taxes. I will be the first to admit both mccain and obama like almost all politicians stretch what they say to make themselves sound better and stretch their accomplishments etc. I would say just look at the voting record. The one thing I would say though is if you look at it logically you cant grow government like he wants yet decrease taxes. If you really want to decrease taxes you have to decrease spending and waste. Also, I would point out when you hear I just want to take tax levels back to where they were before W think back to when the type of tax structure Obama is proposing was in place. Those were the Carter years. Now thats a perfect example of a guy who cared more about people much like you say about Obama and someone I would say is a good man but yet a completely inept president. If you also look historically at how much we pay in taxes as a percentage of income and factor in sales tax, payroll taxes, state taxes, etc etc we now pay a much higher percentage than people did 50 years ago yet we have much more national debt and less to show for it. Housing and healthy insurance and basic necessaties take a higher percentage of the average persons wages than they did back then.(Both of those are facts that can be easily looked up and are well documented) So I would say our problem isnt that we need more taxes or that we even need more from the rich. OUR PROBLEM FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS IN OUR ECONOMY AND WASHINGTON IS OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING THAT HAS INCREASED YEAR AFTER YEAR WITH NO REGARD TO HOW MUCH REVENUE WE HAVE, OUR INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND LAYERS OF RED TAPE AND REDUNDENCY IN DEPARTMENTS THAT TRULY ARE NOT NEEDED. THERE JUST IS NO REASON THAT WASHINGTON SHOULD BE SPENDING MONEY FOR PROJECTS LIKE A BASEBALL STADIUM OR BICYCLE PATHS OR VISITORS CENTERS IN LOUSIANA THAT SHOULD BE DECIDED AND PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE IN THOSE LOCATIONS WHO WILL BENEFIT. WASHINGTON SHOULD ONLY SPEND MONEY ON THINGS THAT AFFECT AND BENEFIT THE ENTIRE NATION NOT GROUPS OR SEGMENTS WHO LOBBY THE BEST. To me only McCain/Palin can honestly make a claim and have the track record and voting record to be able to truly say they will try to change that. Obama/Biden have always voted to participate in the scratch my back ill scratch yours spend spend spend. They have never met a spending bill they didnt like. Its all in the voting records. If you want to know what Obama will govern like take a good hard look at Biden and the skeletons in his closet. There is a reason this man could never get serious consideration for president even though he has run several times. Look at how much the Clintons are distancing themselves and almost backhandedly supporting McCain/Palin. You have Hillary saying nice things about Palin and defending her. You have Bill coming out and saying good things about her husband and that he is impressed with him. Obama only has one thing going for him in this election and thats George Bush. Personally I’m looking forward to the debates because Obama has never been asked the hard questions and it will be interesting to see how he responds.

  53. The basic idea on keeping taxes lower is that the market is the most efficient way to allocate resources (it’s classic assumptions such as “perfect information” are only for a perfect market — for it to be efficient only has to assume that the information is costly). Everyone uses their money unless they stuff it into a box under their mattress or the place of their choosing. If you put it into a bank, it will get reinvested. Raising taxes on only the wealthiest will decrease funds available for efficient investment (or perhaps consumption in which case the money is trading hands and someone is exchanging something of value for it, part of which will nearly always include labor). This has the effect of decreasing economic expansion which will affect the lower classes (i.e. labor supply). The US Luxury Tax failed for this exact reason. One of the effects was to drive yacht builders under. I’m not crying over the loss, but it’s a legitimate issue with taxation. This also has the effect of reducing sources for taxable revenue which, in turn, can decrease the amount of money the government receives. There is a diminishing return on tax increases. Also, we currently have a progressive tax system.

    I think most folks share my stance that they don’t mind high taxes as long as the money is well-spent. In the northern woods, I say “the snow doesn’t plow itself.” Well-run and stable government is what enables a robust economy. That said, government isn’t exactly famous for being an efficient beast especially with all the pork-barrel spending. McCain [a.k.a. Palin’s running mate] has proven in words and in action that he will work to sharply reduce in contrast to Obama. What’s more important than who is spending the money is that it’s done efficiently. However, who’s doing the spending is a major factor that determines if it’s done efficiently.

    I know Doctors who worked their butts off and took tremendous risk (in a financial sense) to get through medical school. They did internships that paid them around $12/hour after they were done (required to gain the experience necessary to be a practicing doctor). Some are now making pretty nice paychecks, but that’s after a solid 10 years of next to nothing. Would they have invested 10 years of their lives and quarter million in debt if they had reason to believe taxes would go “sky higher”? When you consider the time value of money and the returns they could have gotten more quickly from just going to business school and much of the initial returns (i.e. pay) would probably be taxed at a lower bracket… let’s just say high taxes on “the rich” don’t always have the desired result. Sure, there is an element of service that goes into it. However, if you want the best talent in certain fields like medicine where people are willing to pay for that talent (do we want “A” quality doctors or “C” quality doctors?), then we need to leave the mechanisms in place that make this happen instead of “punishing” for how the income is clustered for highly specialized professionals.

    It doesn’t work well for a democracy when a majority realize they can vote resources away from a minority and seize that opportunity. A progressive tax system is one thing, but I’m concerned with the exuberance shown for uneconomic social engineering. In practice, it usually backfires. One of the reasons is moral hazard, an insurance concept. If someone else is paying for the costs, a person is more likely to take risks. Holding all else constant, homes that have fire insurance are more likely to burn than homes that don’t. This is one of the issues in our health care markets. Likewise, one of the main reasons large entities (and it doesn’t get any bigger than the federal government) are too willing to spend on things that are not economical is because the people doing the spending don’t take the loss; the loss (i.e. cost) is pooled just like insurance.

    At any rate, I question the morality of being generous with someone else’s resources. Government needs the resources to get its job done, but there is a strong case to be made for keeping government fiscally lean. That’s a lesson even big-government conservatives could benefit from.

  54. The basic idea on keeping taxes lower is that the market is the most efficient way to allocate resources (it’s classic assumptions such as “perfect information” are only for a perfect market — for it to be efficient only has to assume that the information is costly). Everyone uses their money unless they stuff it into a box under their mattress or the place of their choosing. If you put it into a bank, it will get reinvested. Raising taxes on only the wealthiest will decrease funds available for efficient investment (or perhaps consumption in which case the money is trading hands and someone is exchanging something of value for it, part of which will nearly always include labor). This has the effect of decreasing economic expansion which will affect the lower classes (i.e. labor supply). The US Luxury Tax failed for this exact reason. One of the effects was to drive yacht builders under. I’m not crying over the loss, but it’s a legitimate issue with taxation. This also has the effect of reducing sources for taxable revenue which, in turn, can decrease the amount of money the government receives. There is a diminishing return on tax increases. Also, we currently have a progressive tax system.

    I think most folks share my stance that they don’t mind high taxes as long as the money is well-spent. In the northern woods, I say “the snow doesn’t plow itself.” Well-run and stable government is what enables a robust economy. That said, government isn’t exactly famous for being an efficient beast especially with all the pork-barrel spending. McCain [a.k.a. Palin’s running mate] has proven in words and in action that he will work to sharply reduce in contrast to Obama. What’s more important than who is spending the money is that it’s done efficiently. However, who’s doing the spending is a major factor that determines if it’s done efficiently.

    I know Doctors who worked their butts off and took tremendous risk (in a financial sense) to get through medical school. They did internships that paid them around $12/hour after they were done (required to gain the experience necessary to be a practicing doctor). Some are now making pretty nice paychecks, but that’s after a solid 10 years of next to nothing. Would they have invested 10 years of their lives and quarter million in debt if they had reason to believe taxes would go “sky higher”? When you consider the time value of money and the returns they could have gotten more quickly from just going to business school and much of the initial returns (i.e. pay) would probably be taxed at a lower bracket… let’s just say high taxes on “the rich” don’t always have the desired result. Sure, there is an element of service that goes into it. However, if you want the best talent in certain fields like medicine where people are willing to pay for that talent (do we want “A” quality doctors or “C” quality doctors?), then we need to leave the mechanisms in place that make this happen instead of “punishing” for how the income is clustered for highly specialized professionals.

    It doesn’t work well for a democracy when a majority realize they can vote resources away from a minority and seize that opportunity. A progressive tax system is one thing, but I’m concerned with the exuberance shown for uneconomic social engineering. In practice, it usually backfires. One of the reasons is moral hazard, an insurance concept. If someone else is paying for the costs, a person is more likely to take risks. Holding all else constant, homes that have fire insurance are more likely to burn than homes that don’t. This is one of the issues in our health care markets. Likewise, one of the main reasons large entities (and it doesn’t get any bigger than the federal government) are too willing to spend on things that are not economical is because the people doing the spending don’t take the loss; the loss (i.e. cost) is pooled just like insurance.

    At any rate, I question the morality of being generous with someone else’s resources. Government needs the resources to get its job done, but there is a strong case to be made for keeping government fiscally lean. That’s a lesson even big-government conservatives could benefit from.

  55. I do agree with Obama on this point..

  56. I do agree with Obama on this point..

  57. I’d be careful before hanging my hat on what Frank Schaeffer has to say. The story with him is quite simple: His father was a great man–not just “an evangelist” but one of the most brilliant minds and compassionate hearts of this generation. (his household hardly qualified as a “strict fundamentalist household” as Frank’s own book “Crazy for God” will attest to). His father was definitely not of the “religious right” as his numerous books clearly show.

    Unfortunately, Frank Jr. is not a great man. He’s a whining, lamenting, spoiled brat who has managed to not only alienate his former meal ticket, the “religious right” but has confounded people even in his new-found religious home of Orthodoxy. Pick up any one of his books. If you have the stomach to read long enough you find someone with an axe to grind, wrapping it all into provocative little barbs against all things Christian.

    Frank’s Obama endorsement (or statements about evangelical Christians) is about as poisonous as Farrakhan’s. These endorsement figure right along with many other good reasons to vote for anything but Obama!

  58. I’d be careful before hanging my hat on what Frank Schaeffer has to say. The story with him is quite simple: His father was a great man–not just “an evangelist” but one of the most brilliant minds and compassionate hearts of this generation. (his household hardly qualified as a “strict fundamentalist household” as Frank’s own book “Crazy for God” will attest to). His father was definitely not of the “religious right” as his numerous books clearly show.

    Unfortunately, Frank Jr. is not a great man. He’s a whining, lamenting, spoiled brat who has managed to not only alienate his former meal ticket, the “religious right” but has confounded people even in his new-found religious home of Orthodoxy. Pick up any one of his books. If you have the stomach to read long enough you find someone with an axe to grind, wrapping it all into provocative little barbs against all things Christian.

    Frank’s Obama endorsement (or statements about evangelical Christians) is about as poisonous as Farrakhan’s. These endorsement figure right along with many other good reasons to vote for anything but Obama!

  59. I haven’t had the pleasure yet to read all the comments to this blog, but I did read this blog.

    I am also a pro-life Christian who is supporting Obama. I am not just doing it to NOT vote for McCain, but I have looked into both candidates and agree that Obama is the better choice. While many republicans are uncomfortable with Obama’s lack of experience compared to McCain I would present the idea that quality of experience matters more. Below I’m outlining things I’ve learned and observed from my research as well as the debates about both candidates that I think people should know about before they choose to vote:

    Economic Crisis — while both candidates are supporting the bailout contingent upon some concessions, Obama has been stronger concerning his strategy to revive the economy. Not only did he publish a 6-stage plan on how he wanted to re-vamp the nations economy PRIOR to the stock market free-fall, but he also has come out we very specific plans as to what he would like the bailout to look like, as well as his intention to take care of lower and middle-class families. McCain’s economic plan is ambiguous and focuses on his special interest population: veterans. While I think it is important to support veterans, constructing an economic plan with this small populace at the center is dangerous for the rest of the nation.

    Taxes — This is a point where candidates greatly differ. McCain wants to lower taxes for everyone. That all sounds well and good, but the motivation for his lowering taxes for the wealthy is to use it as an incentive to keep their business stateside. Our history, however, proves that even with enormous tax breaks most businesses will continue to outsource because it is simply cheaper and easier to do so than to re-organize and reform their business to function within the United States. Also, lowering taxes for everyone while we are creating the largest deficit in history with 2 wars and a bailout proposal is absolutely ridiculous.
    Obama’s tax position is that families making less than $250,000 per year (which is 80% of us) would get a tax break, and those above (considered wealthy) would experience a modest tax increase. This would be party contingent on how the bailout bill pans out, and would be subject to decrease again once (if) the economy levels.

    I read one person commented earlier that this tax structure wouldn’t work because it would ‘trickle down’ to the masses because ‘that’s how our economy works’ but I would like to rebut this with pointing out that this is how we would LIKE it to work — unfortunately, for as long as we have tried to employ the ‘trickle down’ model of economics it has proved unsuccessful and opens doors for the kind of predatory economic schemes that have been happening. Not only that but schemes like sub-prime mortgages have been happening over and over. In fact, this is the third time that this kind of economic strategy has been used at such a large scale within the stock market that it has negatively effected our economy. In the 1980s it was with junk bonds… 1990s it was with the .com corporations… and now it is with sub-prime mortgages. The things all these three have in common was how they were carried out — people over-valued the product they were selling, sold it in mass and once the money people said they were creating to pour into the market never showed up, the market bottoms out. It was imaginary money to begin with. .com especially, where companies weren’t even selling anything, just trading advertising rights and coming out a wash. Their revenue came from investors of stocks, but their starting value was 0. Once the stated value caught up with the actual value, the bottom fell out of it. All of this is to say that Obama is presenting a new structure for the economy that includes shirking off a broken system and redistributing wealth to benefit the economy as a whole.

    The War — It’s simple. McCain wants the war to continue and is even implying his intent to aggress on Iran and Russia if they were to continue to be antagonistic. He is a strong military leader, but the catch to that is that he leads with military first instead of a last resort. Obama was opposed to moving into Iraq and sees the value in strong negotiations and foreign relations. He has no qualms about taking a strong position about the threat of Iran, N. Korea and Russia, but he is far from mounting an attack. I’ve heard many people who are in favor of the Iraq war vocalize that they think Obama would be a pushover and would always be against war no matter the threat. The debates on Friday proved that to be untrue — Obama himself laid out a sequence of events that would need to take place in order for him to authorize a new war (in his example he used Iran). His opposition isn’t to war entirely, but to miscalculated, impulsive and costly wars. Obama’s plan for extraction from Iraq is a thoughful and careful one, and I think a PLAN is what we need — instead of messianic diatribes about victory at all costs.

    Healthcare — Frankly it makes no sense to me why universal healthcare would be a reason not to vote for Obama. It seems like people (and I’ve noticed more frequently, Republicans) flinch at the idea of socialized govt programs. I understand wanting to shy away from socialist, communist and fascist ideologies, but the fact is that universal healthcare has worked for many nations rather successfully; and providing healthcare for those who can’t afford it can cause a ripple effect for our economy and nation’s development. Obama isn’t proposing free health care for everyone — but he is in favor of every single person having the care available for those who need it, and aren’t denied the ability to live and survive because they don’t have $500,000 to pay for a surgery nor does their employer offer affordable and comprehensive health packages. McCain doesn’t seem bothered by the healthcare system and is (once again) concerned mostly with veterans when it comes to this issue. It is of concern when someone running for presidency is in the habit of looking out for ‘their own’ primarily.

    As for the positives and negatives about the personal lives of both candidates (and their running mates) it is obvious that McCain and Palin have had many more bumps in the road and have made a considerable amount of bad/selfish/deceitful decisions during their careers. From extra-marital affairs, accepting personal financial gifts, track records of deregulation for the stock market and mortgage bankers, one of their lobbyists still on the freddie mac payroll, the ‘bridge to nowhere’, Palin’s abuse of earmarks as mayor of Wasilla, publishing outright lies in their campaign ads about Obama, and the repeat ‘cancel my campaign’ stunt that McCain pulled in 1999 and in again in 2008.. there is much more reason for skepticism with their campaign. I have managed to leave out dozens of accounts of smear campaigns that have not been verified but are still suspect for both McCain and Palin and make me speculate to their integrity.

    I know that many people who are apt to vote the party line are not easily swayed by most of what I’ve said.. but I would hope that people would understand that Obama has proven himself to be a man with more integrity, he has prepared and considered thoughtfully his position on the important issues, he has picked a running mate who is somewhat unlike him to help him develop areas where he is still lacking and present new ideas (as he stated his reasons for choosing Biden when he was interviewed by Rick Warren) and he really has the intent to help the floundering citizens of this country succeed and turn America around.

  60. I haven’t had the pleasure yet to read all the comments to this blog, but I did read this blog.

    I am also a pro-life Christian who is supporting Obama. I am not just doing it to NOT vote for McCain, but I have looked into both candidates and agree that Obama is the better choice. While many republicans are uncomfortable with Obama’s lack of experience compared to McCain I would present the idea that quality of experience matters more. Below I’m outlining things I’ve learned and observed from my research as well as the debates about both candidates that I think people should know about before they choose to vote:

    Economic Crisis — while both candidates are supporting the bailout contingent upon some concessions, Obama has been stronger concerning his strategy to revive the economy. Not only did he publish a 6-stage plan on how he wanted to re-vamp the nations economy PRIOR to the stock market free-fall, but he also has come out we very specific plans as to what he would like the bailout to look like, as well as his intention to take care of lower and middle-class families. McCain’s economic plan is ambiguous and focuses on his special interest population: veterans. While I think it is important to support veterans, constructing an economic plan with this small populace at the center is dangerous for the rest of the nation.

    Taxes — This is a point where candidates greatly differ. McCain wants to lower taxes for everyone. That all sounds well and good, but the motivation for his lowering taxes for the wealthy is to use it as an incentive to keep their business stateside. Our history, however, proves that even with enormous tax breaks most businesses will continue to outsource because it is simply cheaper and easier to do so than to re-organize and reform their business to function within the United States. Also, lowering taxes for everyone while we are creating the largest deficit in history with 2 wars and a bailout proposal is absolutely ridiculous.
    Obama’s tax position is that families making less than $250,000 per year (which is 80% of us) would get a tax break, and those above (considered wealthy) would experience a modest tax increase. This would be party contingent on how the bailout bill pans out, and would be subject to decrease again once (if) the economy levels.

    I read one person commented earlier that this tax structure wouldn’t work because it would ‘trickle down’ to the masses because ‘that’s how our economy works’ but I would like to rebut this with pointing out that this is how we would LIKE it to work — unfortunately, for as long as we have tried to employ the ‘trickle down’ model of economics it has proved unsuccessful and opens doors for the kind of predatory economic schemes that have been happening. Not only that but schemes like sub-prime mortgages have been happening over and over. In fact, this is the third time that this kind of economic strategy has been used at such a large scale within the stock market that it has negatively effected our economy. In the 1980s it was with junk bonds… 1990s it was with the .com corporations… and now it is with sub-prime mortgages. The things all these three have in common was how they were carried out — people over-valued the product they were selling, sold it in mass and once the money people said they were creating to pour into the market never showed up, the market bottoms out. It was imaginary money to begin with. .com especially, where companies weren’t even selling anything, just trading advertising rights and coming out a wash. Their revenue came from investors of stocks, but their starting value was 0. Once the stated value caught up with the actual value, the bottom fell out of it. All of this is to say that Obama is presenting a new structure for the economy that includes shirking off a broken system and redistributing wealth to benefit the economy as a whole.

    The War — It’s simple. McCain wants the war to continue and is even implying his intent to aggress on Iran and Russia if they were to continue to be antagonistic. He is a strong military leader, but the catch to that is that he leads with military first instead of a last resort. Obama was opposed to moving into Iraq and sees the value in strong negotiations and foreign relations. He has no qualms about taking a strong position about the threat of Iran, N. Korea and Russia, but he is far from mounting an attack. I’ve heard many people who are in favor of the Iraq war vocalize that they think Obama would be a pushover and would always be against war no matter the threat. The debates on Friday proved that to be untrue — Obama himself laid out a sequence of events that would need to take place in order for him to authorize a new war (in his example he used Iran). His opposition isn’t to war entirely, but to miscalculated, impulsive and costly wars. Obama’s plan for extraction from Iraq is a thoughful and careful one, and I think a PLAN is what we need — instead of messianic diatribes about victory at all costs.

    Healthcare — Frankly it makes no sense to me why universal healthcare would be a reason not to vote for Obama. It seems like people (and I’ve noticed more frequently, Republicans) flinch at the idea of socialized govt programs. I understand wanting to shy away from socialist, communist and fascist ideologies, but the fact is that universal healthcare has worked for many nations rather successfully; and providing healthcare for those who can’t afford it can cause a ripple effect for our economy and nation’s development. Obama isn’t proposing free health care for everyone — but he is in favor of every single person having the care available for those who need it, and aren’t denied the ability to live and survive because they don’t have $500,000 to pay for a surgery nor does their employer offer affordable and comprehensive health packages. McCain doesn’t seem bothered by the healthcare system and is (once again) concerned mostly with veterans when it comes to this issue. It is of concern when someone running for presidency is in the habit of looking out for ‘their own’ primarily.

    As for the positives and negatives about the personal lives of both candidates (and their running mates) it is obvious that McCain and Palin have had many more bumps in the road and have made a considerable amount of bad/selfish/deceitful decisions during their careers. From extra-marital affairs, accepting personal financial gifts, track records of deregulation for the stock market and mortgage bankers, one of their lobbyists still on the freddie mac payroll, the ‘bridge to nowhere’, Palin’s abuse of earmarks as mayor of Wasilla, publishing outright lies in their campaign ads about Obama, and the repeat ‘cancel my campaign’ stunt that McCain pulled in 1999 and in again in 2008.. there is much more reason for skepticism with their campaign. I have managed to leave out dozens of accounts of smear campaigns that have not been verified but are still suspect for both McCain and Palin and make me speculate to their integrity.

    I know that many people who are apt to vote the party line are not easily swayed by most of what I’ve said.. but I would hope that people would understand that Obama has proven himself to be a man with more integrity, he has prepared and considered thoughtfully his position on the important issues, he has picked a running mate who is somewhat unlike him to help him develop areas where he is still lacking and present new ideas (as he stated his reasons for choosing Biden when he was interviewed by Rick Warren) and he really has the intent to help the floundering citizens of this country succeed and turn America around.

  61. 342 Million Dollars.. in 116 earmark (pork barrel spending)

    is what Biden has asked for this year ALONE.. for his teeny state of Delaware..

    change/hope/fiscal responsibility indeed.

    I’m sure that type of guy will really challenge Barack’s positions..

    (should we tax then spend or spend then tax?)

  62. 342 Million Dollars.. in 116 earmark (pork barrel spending)

    is what Biden has asked for this year ALONE.. for his teeny state of Delaware..

    change/hope/fiscal responsibility indeed.

    I’m sure that type of guy will really challenge Barack’s positions..

    (should we tax then spend or spend then tax?)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.