Now the independents move to McCain...



http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03...ow_leading_obama.php

Here are two questions for the left leaning folks here:
Would you take your children to church where the preacher gives sermons like this?

Would you elect a man President that takes his children to such a church?

quote:

Originally posted by Shorthair:
Here are two questions for the left leaning folks here:
Would you take your children to church where the preacher gives sermons like this?

Would you elect a man President that takes his children to such a church?

I wouldn't bother asking libs this question, as you can see over the last few pages, they refuse to answer the tough questions or to admit their candidate lied. Not surprising yet still unfortunate.

I am a Conservative Republican and I would like to think I would leave my church if the minister gave those type of sermons.

I do find this troubling however, How many Catholics use condoms or the pill yet do not leave their church over the official policies. I know someone whose church had a pedophile priest but he did not become a Presbyterian. I think what is also important is what the church Board of Directors (or whatever did. Was Sen Obama a lay leader of the Congregation. As a US Senator he should have exercised some leadership with the congregation.

Am I thinking this through the right way?

quote:

Originally posted by SAXON9075:
I am a Conservative Republican and I would like to think I would leave my church if the minister gave those type of sermons.

I would too.

quote:

I do find this troubling however, How many Catholics use condoms or the pill yet do not leave their church over the official policies.

Are you serious?

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by SAXON9075:
I am a Conservative Republican and I would like to think I would leave my church if the minister gave those type of sermons.

I would too.

As would many people. It's a reasonable decision.

But whatever the individual's decision, leaving your church isn't something done lightly or easily for many people, like finding a new health club or fraternal lodge. In many cases, the congregation has become the anchor for your spiritual life and part of your extended family. You love them, and for that reason, maybe some would decide to stay in spite of a pastor they didn't agree with, choosing instead to "hate the sin, love the sinner".

I don't know what I'd do. I'm fortunate to belong to a denomination in which an individual congregation has sole power to hire and fire its pastor. Mine has done so. But that's not the case with most Protestant denominations and apparently isn't the case with the United Church of Christ.

KKL:

I am serious but I do not think I expressed myself rightly. What I was trying to say is how many people who are excoriating Sen Obama do things which are anathama to their own church's official teachings. (or preachings. Birth Control is just the issue that came to mind. I could have said divorce. I know of couples and priests who look the other way and offer communion to people who are divorced and remarried without a religious divorce from a curia.

I am an Episcopalian however many years ago my mother became an Anglican because she could not reconcile her upbringing with women ministers or gay ministers. Being of a different generation I do not have a problem with that although I am uncomfortable with women ministers. That is something I have to stgruggle with. I do not doubt their legitimacy, male ministers are just a long tradition.

I don't think the problem is just that Senator Obama is attending a church whose pastor speaks in such ways, I believe the problem is also that he is a U.S. Senator attending a church whose pastor spews anti-american and racially divisive rhetoric.
This man is running for the highest office in our country, yet he didn't have the decision making skills to realize this church does not represent his faith correctly or perhaps he agrees with the pastor. Which is worse?

did anyone else catch Fox News Sunday and the interview with Govenor's Rendel (PA) and Richardson (NM)?

Gov Rendel, a Clinton supporter, said the party has to get beyond who won the most delegates, the most states, and the most votes and pick the most "electable" candidate.

Gee I thought all the above was what we called democracy? He sounded like the worst kind of back room politician, or worse the kind of politician who says, we know whats best for you, you don't. That "nanny state" ideology scares me more than Sen Obama's pastor.

Gov. Rendel has been the single most ubiquitous presence on TV for weeks now -- he's everywhere! I always thought he looked more like the head of the Pipefitters Union than the governor of a major state.

I didn't see the Fox interview, but my guess would be he was talking about the eventuality of neither candidate having enough delegates going into the convention, and how the convention should select a candidate if that did happen.

I hope you are right Jasck but when he kept interrupting Gov Richardson and Chris Wallace they both asked what if Sen Obama had the lead going into the convention (but not a lock) what should the superdelegates do and he said they should pick the electable candidate.

He said thatthe startes Sen Obama won did not rteally matter because Sen Clinton can win the states that do matter in November and she is ahead of Sen McCain in those electoral college states.

Well unfortunately that is the system in the primaries. New Hampshire and Iowa are insignifigant come November but are must wins in the primaries.

Gov Rendel seemed to be saying the big wigs will pick the best candidate because the voters can't.

Well, this story sure as hell isn't going anywhere. Just when everyone thought it was safe for Obama, his pastor speaks again. He said this in 2003, recently released...

“Remember it was soldiers of the 3rd Marine Regiment of Rome who had fun with Jesus who was mistreated as a prisoner of war, an enemy of the occupying army stationed in Jerusalem to insure the mopping up action of Operation Israeli Freedom.”

Then there is the National; Press Club yesterday.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/29/955745.aspx

I'm starting to wonder if Pastor Wright is under the employ of the Clinton campaign. It's pretty clear by now that if Obama is the nominee, he will most likely never overcome all the damage done in the primary. Clinton on the other hand is obviously damaged herself. After all, there was Snipergate and the revelation that her husband pardoned many of the Weather Underground and then there are her negatives. It's almost as if McCain is being handed the Predidency. It seems evident to me that Hillary is on a seek and destroy mission, after all, one of her supporters organized Rev. Wrights appearance at the National Press Club. Seems Hillary is gearing up for a 2012 run now.
To all those who thought Obama was any different than any other politician, you were right, he is. Not only is he a liar but he also associates with terrorists (William Ayers) and antisemites. Senator Obama is toast. He is also a looking glass that reveals the naivete of many of the Americans that voted for him.

quote:

It's almost as if McCain is being handed the Predidency.

Who knows? But that's not evident yet. Nor is Obama's degree of toastness.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:

quote:

It's almost as if McCain is being handed the Predidency.

Who knows? But that's not evident yet. Nor is Obama's degree of toastness.

Jack, Obama is through. Yes, he may win the primary but do you really believe he can carry states like Ohio and Florida, which are vital to winning the Presidency? It's not going to happen. Is Obama winning? Yes, with minorities, however in Pennsylvania, he did not pick up any of Clinton's demographic, which is working class white democrats.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1933322220080421

Those who used to be the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, before the radical left took over.

Senator Obama's character is in question and he is badly damaged. There is no way he is going to recover from this. Regardless of how the media tries to prop him up, white, male voters-who make up most of the voters in the country, will never hand him the Presidency. I also doubt he will get the jewish vote. The funny thing is this, during the Pennsylvania primary, when voters selected Clinton, nearly half said that they did not trust her.

quote:

but do you really believe he can carry states like Ohio and Florida,

Again, who knows? McCain's campaign hasn't been all that brilliant, either, and there are six full months until the election.

But in the polls at the moment, McCain has an eleven point lead over Obama in Florida, but Ohio is a statistical tie between the two. Clinton leads McCain by 5 points in Ohio, with Florida a tie. Both states would seem to be in play.

But then, it'll be different next week. And the week after. And the week after that.

Wright is on a campaign to save his image. Looks like he is perfectly willing to throw Obama under the bus.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:

quote:

but do you really believe he can carry states like Ohio and Florida,

Again, who knows? McCain's campaign hasn't been all that brilliant, either, and there are six full months until the election.

But in the polls at the moment, McCain has an eleven point lead over Obama in Florida, but Ohio is a statistical tie between the two. Clinton leads McCain by 5 points in Ohio, with Florida a tie.

But then, it'll be different next week. And the week after. And the week after that.

Any poll related to Obama is going to be inaccurate due to the Bradley Effect.
McCain has actually run a very good campaign. He was dead in the water less than a year ago, now he is the presumtive nominee and going on trips to the Middle East and acting very Presidential. Hillary Clinton is done, in my opinion. She has been proven a liar so many times that she is merely a caricature of herself and her husband.
I could be wrong, McCain may lose and in a few ways I think it would be great for conservatives if he does indeed lose. Do these three candidates really represent the best that America has to offer?

It's interesting to watch the process, if more than a bit frustrating.

The Republican party was able to decide on their candidate early, saving McCain from some more public thrashing at the hands of the conservative Right.

On the other hand, the Democrats can't seem to make up their minds, and both candidates are getting bruised. It does show that both candidates have a strong following, so either could become a strong candidate in the general election.

All that said, once the conventions are over, it's a new race. Each candidate has their own unique strengths and weaknesses. McCain is closely tied to the policies of the Bush administration vis-a-vis the war in Iraq and the economy (both hot issues at the moment) and is pretty unpopular still with the conservative wing of his party. How he fares will be a direct referendum on those policies as they are seen during those last weeks before the election. Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama have their own self-inflicted wounds to overcome.

It's too early to call any of them toast (tempting as it may be). The US electorate has a notoriously short attention span, and an even shorter memory. September and October will be when this election is decided, not now.

quote:

Any poll related to Obama is going to be inaccurate due to the Bradley Effect.

Yeah, I was listening to a local radio talk show host just a few days ago talking about the Bradley Effect and its effect on Obama's poll numbers. Some statisticians don't think it's a factor any more, but I dunno. Either way, though, the major polling companies are aware of it and make efforts against it, such as being careful of who they have asking the questions and the way the questions are phrased.

At any rate, so far, Obama's polling numbers going into any of the state primaries and caucuses have been close enough to the actual vote (even in New Hampshire, where the pollsters missed the late Clinton surge) to suggest the Bradley Effect wasn't at play. That may be different, of course, in head-to-head general election matchups, and occasionally, y'know, the polls are just plain wrong.