Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Republicans heart Obama?
Barack Obama is undoubtedly an appealing figure–and not just among Democrats. Even Republicans are attracted to his eloquence, his message of unity–and the fact that he is running against the Clintons.
But Washington Post writer Peter Wehner says Obama will never gain widespread support among Republicans because “he is, on almost every issue, a conventional liberal”:
Bill Clinton ran an intellectually creative race whose ideas appealed to non-Democrats. Barack Obama has shown no such inclination so far (his speeches, while inspiring, mostly avoid a serious discussion of policies). If he wanted to demonstrate his independence from liberal orthodoxy, for example, he could come out in favor of school choice for low-income families, which would both help poor families and demonstrate support for some of the best faith-based institutions in America: urban parochial schools.
If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee and fails to take steps such as this, his liberal views will be his greatest vulnerability. Obama will try to reject the liberal label–but based on his stands on the issues, at least so far, the label will fit, and it will stick.
Barack Obama is among the most impressive political talents of our lifetime. If he defeats Hillary Clinton, the question for the general election is not whether he can transcend his race but whether he can reach beyond his ideology.
Is Obama capable of doing so?
back to top88 Comments to “Republicans heart Obama?”
What annoys me is that the mainstream media act as campaigners by casting Obama and Clinton as moderates and centrists.
Report comment to moderator
The few times I’ve heard him speak, he sounds like a typical democrats, just a lot of empty emotionalism.
Report comment to moderator
Kristin says
“Barack Obama is among the most impressive political talents of our lifetime”
It seems that you are only paying attention to the MSM. Obama hasn’t done much of anything.
He is smart. He did very well in Harvard and Harvard law school.
In order to get elected to the Illinois legislature, he took advantage of another “community leader.” Since I don’t really like Obama in the first place, the story left a bad taste in my mouth.
He gives good speeches. (According to the MSM.) He uses soaring rhetoric that is devoid of substance.
He is a perfect Liberal. Last year his voting record was 100% liberal. The MSM NEVER (pardon the caps) mentions his voting record.
Obama has done nothing of note in the US Senate.
He promises nationalized health care. (The Democratically controlled state senate committee here in CA voted down the Governator’s health care proposal. Did they look at the cost and decide they didn’t want to be responsible for voting it in?)
Obama promises to get the US military out of Iraq. (Your choice)
Is Barack Obama a creature of the MSM? Is there any “there there?”
Report comment to moderator
I suspect a lot of those young evangelicals that are walking away from the three cornerstones (four now) of the Conservative Christian Republican Party (1. Anti women’s rights, 2. Hate gays, 3. Abstinence, 4. Pro Iraq fiasco) are racing toward Obama and the promise of doing things that will actually help America instead of divide it further.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles: In order to get elected to the Illinois legislature, he took advantage of another “community leader.” Since I don’t really like Obama in the first place, the story left a bad taste in my mouth.
In order to get George W. Bush elected to the presidency, Republicans spread a story in South Carolina that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child. The story was supported by a photo of McCain holding his adopted Bangladeshi daughter.
Did that also leave a bad taste in your mouth?
Maybe it did, maybe not, but many Republicans are untroubled by this. And while they often insist that it was never proven that the Bush campaign did this, somebody who supported Bush did and his campaign never repudiated it.
I am always struck by the rank hypocrisy that always emerges in politics, whereby your opponents’ slightest missteps are inflated into huge scandals, and your own side’s egregious transgressions are waved off as nothing.
Christians who are tempted to join in these games should reflect on beams and motes and ask themselves if they really want to be about doing that.
Report comment to moderator
#5 STEVEG
It seems to me that Bush often doesn’t comment about things said about him.
Who put this out? No one knows, so how do you know it was a Republican or a Bushie that put it out? It sounds more like a certain ex-President than anyone else.
Report comment to moderator
No one knows, so how do you know it was a Republican or a Bushie that put it out? It sounds more like a certain ex-President than anyone else.
It was put out by someone who wanted Bush to win the South Carolina primary and the nomination. It is widely believed to be the work of Karl Rove, though I agree that has never been proven.
You are right, it does sound a lot like the M.O. of a certain ex-President … Nixon. (See: The Canuck Letter.)
(Do you have any actual evidence that it was another ex-President, or is it just your CDS acting up again?)
In any case, it’s manifestly obvious that people on both sides of the aisle engage in this “your mote is worse than my beam” game. It’s sad.
Report comment to moderator
And just what has Obama promised besides change? He has proposed a radical Marxist agenda with massive shifts in income from the haves to the have nots (read confiscation) and a nanny state of unbelievable proportions.
Just remember most of the great dictators and demagogues of recent memory were captivating speakers.
Report comment to moderator
KBells, He’s inspiring. Apparently that’s all it takes to be considered qualified for the job of president.
RDean, of course we could claim that the cornersotnes of the Democratic Party are (1) anti-child, (2) anti-marriage, (3) pro-terrorists, and (4) anti-free speech. But that would be extreme over-simplification and twisting of their/your true positions. Get it?
SteveG, you must at least acknowledge that somebody might have put out the story in order to discredit Bush, just as you are using it to do.
Ivan, Marxist is a good word. Maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but not much of one.
Report comment to moderator
Sure republicans love him. They have been getting and continue to get more leftist by the day.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, you must at least acknowledge that somebody might have put out the story in order to discredit Bush, just as you are using it to do.
Hmmm … honestly I’d never considered that possibility. If that was the intent, it backfired huge.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, but my intent wasn’t to discredit Bush. (He doesn’t need my help!) It was just to point out what I think is a common sort of tunnel vision partisans (of any party) are prone to.
Report comment to moderator
Obama doesn’t need to transcend his ideology. He can get elected without doing so, as a liberal
Haven’t you people learned anything form the mass of Republicans disassociating themselves from Bush, from the countries mutually journey leftward on Healthcare, from it’s exhaust in Iraq, from the decline of AFA & FRC & other Dobson projects, the growing dedication of moderate Christians to address global warming & poverty, and from the turn out differences in primaries all across the country?
America is sick of you! It’s ready to elect a liberal, and even those you place the highest amount of hope in are ready to abandon your positions.
No one has to, or will, pander to the right in 2008.
Report comment to moderator
“(his speeches, while inspiring, mostly avoid a serious discussion of policies)”
Obviously he knows what his audience wants to hear and delivers exactly that. He’s just an empty suit speaking sweet nothings into the wind. But the people love it because he says he’ll solve all their problems leaving them free to pursue the happy side of life without a care from personal responsibility anywhere—they just have to send in all their money when he asks.
Report comment to moderator
“America is sick of you!”
Questions:
Who is “America”?
Who is “you”?
As I see it, I am America. Am I sick of myself?
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone care for a pair of blinders?
Report comment to moderator
No need to worry. Barack Hussein Obama is not going to be POTUS o VPOTUS. There’s not a chance it’s not going to happen, no matter how many times he clicks his heels and sings Somewhere Over The Rainbow Coalition.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles is right,
SteveG does NOT know who put those alleged stories in South Carolina nor does he know their motives. Yet he is willing to blame “Republicans” in general.
That is intellectually irresponsible.
We should not uncritically believe any story that comes down the pike NOR should we believe people like SteveG who are ready to blame vast categories of people based on his presumptions.
Be a critical thinker, not a critical person.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, what do myou make of the homosexual Larry Sinclair claiming on YouTuble that he and Obama did cocaine and had gay sex in 1999? Do you believe Sinclair? If so, does it make your more inclined to vote Obama, or less inclined?
And if you don’t believe Sinclair, how much do you think Hillary’s people paid him?
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, maybe SteveG believes it. If it’s alleged, it must be true, apparently. I’m being a bit unfair, but I wish that SteveG would at least acknowledge the possibility that somebody other than a Republican operative put out the McCain story. Then it would be nice for him to admit that both parties have engaged in funny business throughout the decades.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, you forget what was formerly known as the “silent majority.”
It’s a very large group of people who always vote intelligently, who are too busy working and living to offer opinion for your consumption via your worthless polls and are still there, carefully watching what’s happening. You haven’t a clue what they think or will do because they haven’t told you or anyone else what they’re thinking or going to do in November. If and when leftists prevail in an election, it’s because these people weren’t inspired enough to vote or because Republicans had recently failed to act as the Conservatives they’re supposed to and not getting their vote is a form of retaliation. Reagan is an example of what happens when they all vote together.
Those you do hear are part of a well orchestrated plan to make McCain the candidate because leftists have discovered that voting in Republican primaries, calling talk radio to pose as Republicans and skewing polls with their lies—the default moral basis of their lives—is all that is necessary to put a candidate on the ticket the left can defeat. And if all else fails, there is always cheating at the ballot box and judge shopping and legal suit to put results in doubt.
The MSM and the origins of what you cite, don’t speak for anyone other than themselves based on their own desires making your fantasy list of leftist success precisely that—fantasy.
The MSM is selling McCain with all the fervor and fever of a malaria victim. He’s their boy, and not that of the majority of Americans.
Report comment to moderator
Luke @ #12
Exactly so.
There was no reason for Reagan to apologize for a conservative ideology in 1980, and there is no need for Obama or any other Democrat to distance themselves from an ideology of being liberal or leftist.
It’s high time to stop letting the Republicans act as though “liberal” were a dirty word, and hopefully we see in 2008 a liberal candidate with the courage of his or her convictions to stand up, proclaim their liberalism, and be elected because, not in spite, of that fact.
My biggest disappointment with Clinton, was that once elected, he didn’t stand his ground ideologically, but compromised rather than taking a hard-line stance.
I disliked Reagan’s policies, but respected that he uncompromisingly followed his beliefs. Hopefully, we have someone on the left side of the spectrum who will do the same.
Report comment to moderator
The key point in Wehner’s piece is that Bill Clinton ran as a Democratic centrist in 2000 with ideas that appealed to independents. Obama and Clinton in order to satisfy the nutroots set have had to move so far to the left that they will be in trouble with the general electorate.
McCain can make mincemeat of either Obama or Clinton on the Iraq issue and probably, also, on health-care and immigration.
When Luke remarks that America is sick of you, he’s speaking for himself, not America. Most Americans are well to the right of both Obama and Clinton.
Report comment to moderator
#9: RDean, of course we could claim that the cornersotnes of the Democratic Party are (1) anti-child, (2) anti-marriage, (3) pro-terrorists, and (4) anti-free speech. But that would be extreme over-simplification and twisting of their/your true positions. Get it?
No.
Democrats want to bring health insurance to children that have none and fund No Child Left Behind properly. How is that “anti child”?
Democrats want to have equal rights to all of it’s citizens. Allowing gays rights will in no way affect anyones marriage. Of course, there is the babble, “but the institution will be ruined”, even though no one can say how. Ironic, the ones that complain about the gays will not admit to knowing any. The very few that some of them know, will say their gays are not like the other ones.
Republicans have used the “Democrats are Pro Terrorists” slander so much, no one takes it serious anymore. Republicans have done way more to create new terrorists and have left the old one completely alone (Bin Laden).
Trying to put “mystical creation” into our schools and being denied and the attempt to force religion on those that don’t believe in the occult is hardly a slam against “free speech”. Remember, our constitution has protections written into it to protect us from supernatural folly. Not a word against more level minded atheists. Our founding fathers understood this.
The Christian Republicans have put so much spin on everything, they have lost the ability to be honest and see the truth. Pity.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A at #20: I wish that SteveG would at least acknowledge the possibility that somebody other than a Republican operative put out the McCain story. Then it would be nice for him to admit that both parties have engaged in funny business throughout the decades.
What would be nice would be if you and Joel Mark would actually READ my posts, which are right there in front of you, before commenting.
I will repeat myself with emphasis added:
In post #11, I said: Hmmm … honestly I’d never considered that possibility. If that was the intent, it backfired huge.
That was me, considering the possibility.
Right on the heels of that post, in #12, I explained that my intent wasn’t to discredit Bush but to point out what I think is a common sort of tunnel vision partisans (of any party) are prone to.
That was me, noting that the phenomenon I’m talking about (which is not “funny business” but the tendency to minimize your own side’s foibles and maximize the other’s) is a fault of any and all parties.
But that was not a new epiphany; it was, in fact, the point I’d tried to make in the first place. In #7 I said: In any case, it’s manifestly obvious that people on both sides of the aisle engage in this “your mote is worse than my beam” game. It’s sad.
And in #5, I said: I am always struck by the rank hypocrisy that always emerges in politics, whereby your opponents’ slightest missteps are inflated into huge scandals, and your own side’s egregious transgressions are waved off as nothing.
In #5 I admittedly didn’t specifically say it applies to both sides, but since I did refer to “your opponents” and “your own side,” it should have been clear I wasn’t defining which party is which… because it applies either way.
I mean, how much more clear can I be?
Report comment to moderator
I did READ your post SteveG. You wrote: “In order to get George W. Bush elected to the presidency, Republicans spread a story in South Carolina that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child.”
You simply do not know who did this. That said, I appreciate your subsequent disclaimers and variations on the point.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, I apologize for a not-too-careful reading and for some exaggeration.
RDean, what I wanted you to get is that it works both ways. You oversimplify the views (and misrepresent them, in my opinion) of Republicans, but we can do the same thing about Democrats, if we choose to.
Democrats
Anti-child: Abortion “rights.”
Anti-marriage: Same-sex “marriage.”
Pro-terrorists: Anti-Iraq invasion,
for “negotiating”
Anti-Free Speech: Speech codes, hate crimes, “sensitivity” training, etc.
My Defense of Your Characterization of Republicans
1. Anti women’s rights
Women already have full rights. The right to kill their baby shouldn’t be included.
2. Hate gays
Hardly anyone hates gays in the Republican Party. We just don’t think that they (or other minorities) require or deserve special privileges.
3. Abstinence
What’s wrong with abstinence? It’s clean and safe. If we promote abstinence, what are Democrats promoting–promiscuity?
4. Pro Iraq fiasco
We ousted a brutal murderer and liberated an oppressed people. Seems like a pretty liberal action to me.
See, two can play that game! Let’s try to be a bit more nuanced, shall we? Please?
Report comment to moderator
On Obama’s appeal:
He appeals to MoveOn.org who endorsed him, along with Ted Kennedy.
I think he appeals to some able-bodied young Americans who feel entitled to be taken care of by the government—to those who want to benefit from the fruit of other people’s labor.
Once his views are made clear, he will not appeal to those who beleive in hard work, traditional marriage, personal responsibility and accountability and living within one’s means.
Obama’s popularity indicates that Bill Clinton was so wrong when he said in his 1996 State of the Union address that “the era of big government is not over.”
It’s not. Too bad.
Report comment to moderator
Before Obama becomes President, I hope he learns that the government does not create prosperity, hard working people do. And the government exists on the sole support of the private sector (not vice versa).
I hope he learns that it is not the role of government to decide how much money people need or to use those decisions to redistribute it to people. Marxism teaches; ‘from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.’” No thank you.
I hope he learns that the richest one percent of Americans earn 19 percent of the income, but pay 37 percent of the income tax. And the top ten percent pay 68 percent of the income tax.
But apparently they don’t teach those things at Harvard.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A: the mainstream media act as campaigners by casting Obama and Clinton as moderates and centrists.
Could you provide examples?
As a liberal, I certainly wouldn’t award either of their voting records 100%.
In order to be a liberal, in my book, you have to be the opposite of a Republican on key issues, to wit:
1. The progressive personal income tax is morally good and practically beneficial, and government spending promotes the general welfare and creates prosperity.
2. America is too militaristic.
3. The Bill of Rights calls for the application of moral understandings that transcend tradition and history. Preventive detention, coercive interrogation, and removal of security against unreasonable search and seizure are bad.
4. Government “takeover” of health care as well as education would be good. Government programs must be increased to help the poor.
5. Enforcing religious standards of sexual morality isn’t the job of police.
Rep. Kucinich was the only “liberal” to talk up this game. Hillary and Barak have voted for the Iraq invasion and/or to continue to “support the troops in the field.” They have voted for the Banks, for copyright extension, for tax cuts, for wiretapping, and they failed to impeach Bush. Neither of them will install a Single Payer healthcare system, and neither would abolish local school boards.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s the problem with Peter Wehner’s approach. He, like so many other conservatives, takes one issue (school choice) and makes it a litmus test. Conservatives used to set aside their differences for the over-all good. Seven years in power has evidently erased that advantage and caused significant divisions.
I have decided to throw my support to Obama. The main reason is because he represents a new direction for our country. I like his hope, his calls to our better angels. I think he connects with people much like Reagan did.
I am also extremely nervous. So much could go wrong and Obama could end up losing to Clinton. And one doesn’t know what low-down tactics the Republicans will stoop to in the general election.
If my dream does come true, and Obama is elected President I will weep unashamadly. It will mean this country has finally turned a corner.
So, I remain hopeful, but realistic.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, I think you’re misjudging the douchiness of Wehner.
He isn’t calling “school choice” a litmus test so much as suggesting it as a possible solution to an Obama whom (he believes, perchance out of self delusion) needs to reach out to the most narrow minded of Americans at a time in our nation where political consciousness is at it’s highest in the last 30 years!
Report comment to moderator
p.s.- Also hopeful but nervous, and I have also decided to vote Obama in the last couple of days (call is a Scarlet Johanson solidarity vote) because I’m not sure I want to live through 4 years of the Christian right during a Clinton presidency. I will however gladly vote for the Hill-dawg should she scrap up the deligates, and strongly encourage her to NOT pick Evan Bayh or some other jerkwad for her running mate.
But for now “Obama-Sebelius ‘08″! I’m in.
Report comment to moderator
Luke,
Maybe so. I have a 104 temperature at the moment and I’m on the verge of losing it. But there is a tendency of conservatives to be single issue voters.
I’m like you – for now I’m “in” on Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Kristin, I blamed you for saying
“Barack Obama is among the most impressive political talents of our lifetime.”
I read it wrong, Peter Wehner said it, not you.
Please forgive me,
Bob Buckles
Report comment to moderator
Why do liberals accuse conservatives of being ‘one issue [pro-life] voters’ when they use the opposite point of view [pro-choice] as their litmus test?
Report comment to moderator
Because they always accuse us of the things that they do.
Report comment to moderator
Kavee,
I don’t. While I strongly prefer a candidate that is pro-choice, it’s not a litmus test for me. One finds extremists in both parties. Even if Clinton or Obama were anti-choice, I would still vote for them because they’re right on so many other big issues. The bottom line is that the vast majority of people are much more practical. The “abortion wars” do not affect most people’s day to day lives.
If McCain or some other Republican gets elected, I will continue to work for the pro-choice cause.
I realize there is a substantial presence of anti-choicer’s on here, but that is an anomoly when one looks at the general population.
Report comment to moderator
#27: Let’s try to be a bit more nuanced, shall we? Please?
Sure.
#1: Women already have full rights.
Then why should we try to legislate their bodies? I’m glad I can’t be forced to have an unwanted baby. Funny, everyone I have asked who is against a woman’s rights, doesn’t even know any women who have had an abortion. I don’t.
#2: or deserve special privileges.
Special privileges like a written will? Right now, in any state in the union, a first cousin can contest a gay will and win. That’s why you have adults trying to adopt each other. Isn’t that “special”? We send mothers and fathers to Iraq and kick out strapping young men because of who they love. By kicking them out, they are denied guaranteed student loans and home loans. Once again, “special”. Family members who don’t “approve” deny Gays hospital visits. It’s sickening they way you guys call these “special privileges”. Just sickening. Makes you wonder what kind of people you are. Not “special”, that’s for sure.
#3: What’s wrong with abstinence?
Nothing. What’s wrong is not teaching education. This is why Christian children have such a high pregnancy and STD rate.
#4: We ousted a brutal murderer and liberated an oppressed people.
Ousted a brutal murderer yes, liberated an oppressed people, in your dreams. Turkey is 90% Muslim, they purposely kept “Islam” out of their constitution and crack down on the religious radicals in a desperate attempt to stay secular. Even with that, teaching evolution is illegal which is why they send their students overseas to become doctors (can’t teach medicine these days without teaching, get this, “science”).
Iraq wrote Islam into their constitution as the “National Religion”. They are becoming, or have already become a religious, Fundamental, Islamic state. Exactly the type we brought down in Afghanistan where we let Bin Laden go. We have spent a borrowed trillion dollars (50,000 per man, woman and child) and they still don’t have electricity or running water. Yea, we have improved their lives and liberated them. That’s why they live in armed camps and say it’s ok to kill Americans.
There is no nuance. The Republicans have turned into this lying, corrupt party who have desperately tried, unintentionally, to bring down and bankrupt this country. We need new leadership.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop — “As a liberal, I certainly wouldn’t award either of their voting records 100%.”
Any thought as to why that might be the case? Why haven’t they voted 100% for the leftist points you proclaim as “good” for America?
I’d suggest that they wouldn’t be in the position they are today—viable candidates for the Presidency—if they had and I point to Dennis Kucinich as a prime example of what happens nationally with that kind of record.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, what about Larry Sinclair?
Why are you and Anlir both afraid to touch this question?
Report comment to moderator
Anybody calling themselves Republican should live by and support conservative principles. Many are currently not. In practicality, honest repubs should be as far away from Mr. Obama’s politics/policies as possible.
So before anyone asks, I am not a repub, either. They don’t like it that I am much more conservative than they.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is for giving out driver’s licenses to illegals. Who cares about the law?
Report comment to moderator
There does seem to be a number of Republicans who are favorable towards Obama.
*****
Night Train,
I don’t know who Larry Sinclair is. I can’t respond to everyone that comes down the pike.
Report comment to moderator
#42: Anybody calling themselves Republican should live by and support conservative principles.
Actually, they should call themselves, “Religious and Christian Conservative Republicans”. Call it the way it is.
Report comment to moderator
RDean: “#1: Women already have full rights.
Then why should we try to legislate their bodies?”
We haven’t any more than yours, assuming you’re male—murder is murder for everyone and that is the law. Why do you think women need an exception as if pregnancy were an unavoidable accident that just happens when you’re not looking?
RDean: “This is why Christian children have such a high pregnancy and STD rate.”
Implying that it’s higher than the norm? Prove this with facts—as your credibility rating is zero. Funny how an entire African country can dramatically reduce the AIDS infection/case rate with abstinence and you in all your wisdom are unable to understand that.
As for the rest of your fantasy post . . . it doesn’t merit comment.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, Larry Sincliar is the homosexual who posted a YouTube video (OBAMAS SEX & DRUG LIMO PARTY) challenging Obama’s claim that he hasn’t used drugs since he was a teenager. Sinclair says that in 1999, when Obama was a 35 year old state legislator, the two of them shared cocaine. Not only that, but they also had gay sex. He says he’s willing to take a polygraph and is challenging Obama to do the same.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean, I know of quite a number of folks who support conservative principles who are also atheists. I worked with 3 of them, Sir.
Report comment to moderator
Rond at #46: As for the rest of your fantasy post . . . it doesn’t merit comment.
Actually it does. RDean’s Second Point in Post #39 is a dead-on summary of the “special” rights that you all fear homosexuals gaining.
But I know why you would rather not touch that part of his post. It’s ok.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: Who cares about the law?
Obama does, you don’t. Undocumented Mexicans may have entered the country illegally (or perhaps not) but their being in the country is not, under the law, illegal. When they controlled Congress, Republicans talked about making the presence of undocumented immigrants a crime, because the fact that it isn’t is a major irritation and factual embarrassment to the Republican base. However, the Republicans never brought it to a vote. Therefore, being in America is not illegal. The law doesn’t require deportation of undocumented aliens. The law allows them to ask for indefinite stays of deportation, and it allows judges to consider the requests of citizens who object to someone’s deportation.
Common law (and compassion) recognizes the force of long-recognized de-facto policy as a contradiction in law. If the government chooses as a matter of long-standing policy to enable behavior and/or to accept the circumvention of barriers to that behavior, such as in the illegal entry of tens of millions of people over the Mexican boarder over the past two centuries, then the law can excuse that behavior of criminal intent.
BTW, requiring undocumented Mexicans to get drivers licenses doesn’t confer citizenship or prevent deportation, it just causes more of them to get insurance and report accidents, which does good, not evil. (As if the mind that is in Joel Mark knows the difference.)
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
Nonsense.
I asked, “Who cares about the law?” It’s an honest question considering the fact that the laws against illegal immigration are not being respected in Obama’s policy.
You enter the country illegally and you are a criminal. You broke the law.
Failure to enforce a law does not mean those who broke it are legal.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: Before Obama becomes President, I hope he learns that the government does not create prosperity, hard working people do.
So does a hard working government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Without government, people wouldn’t have as much work, would have to work too hard for what they get, and would spend too much of what they get for essential services, let alone for dreams like higher education.
Right-wingers can prefer “less government,” but that doesn’t make less government economically smart.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: You enter the country illegally and you are a criminal. You broke the law. Failure to enforce a law does not mean those who broke it are legal.
You’re not a criminal unless you’re prosecuted within five years of the act and convicted on evidence. Mere presence in the country without documentation is not proof of the crime of illegal entry. If the entry occurred more than 5 years ago (as is the case for millions) you can’t ever be prosecuted. In order to charge someone with illegal entry, the US Attorney needs positive evidence about the entry. Sorry, but that’s just the definition of criminal guilt the Founding Fathers imposed on you.
Don’t be so frustrated that you can’t recognize the legal concepts. The law allows (but does not require) deportation of undocumented aliens. However, the law doesn’t define their presence in the United States as a crime, and the law doesn’t allow us to presume an undocumented alien to be guilty of illegal entry. The law doesn’t even allow us to prosecute people for illegal entry who came here more than 5 years ago. Their continued presence is perfectly legal, although subject to the jeapordy of deportation proceedings.
You might think being here without documentation is bad, but that doesn’t make it criminal.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, have you ever operated your motor vehicle in excess of the speed limit? “Even one mile over the limit.” as a lawyer once asked me? In that case, you are a lawbreaker. Have you ever caused an accident, and could your speeding be a risk to public safety? In that case, your lawbreaking was not for good, as the illegal entry of humble laborers is for our material good.
Perhaps you speed because the limits aren’t enforced unless you egregiously drive over 10 or 20 miles over the limit. Nevertheless, you could still go down to the traffic division of the police department, report your episodes of lawbreaking, collect a stack of tickets, and mail them in with your bond.
Are you intellectually honest, JOEL MARK?
Report comment to moderator
#49 — “Actually it does. RDean’s Second Point in Post #39 is a dead-on summary of the “special” rights that you all fear homosexuals gaining.”
You must mean this: “Special privileges like a written will? Right now, in any state in the union, a first cousin can contest a gay will and win.”
Anyone can put anything they want in their will and anyone involved legally can accept or contest any part of it they choose—regardless of his/her preference for sexual activity.
RDean’s straw “cousin” comment is just another of his insupportable hyperbole implying that “everything always happens this way cause I say so” which is purely his fantasy and for which you’ll need to provide proof that this is indeed the case. Then we can discuss any needed change to the law. However, since everyone is treated equally within the law and the problem, should you prove there is one, may be with interpretation and application of the law resting with the bench, I doubt you’ll find much fervor to make any change—or enough to satisfy RDean’s ravings.
Report comment to moderator
That, yes, but also the fact that people can be discharged from the military for being homosexual, even if they are not egregious about it; they can be denied the right to visit their partner in the hospital if one of the partner’s blood relatives so orders.
As for the cousin? Well, the cousin is a blood relative and, because the partner has no legal standing — no marriage or even a recognized civil union in most U.S. states — can push the partner out of the will much more easily than could happen to a spouse.
Homosexuals have never wanted “special” rights, although conservatives have gotten a lot of mileage out of the phrase. They just would like the right to conduct their private affairs on the same basis as heterosexuals do.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: I think he appeals to some able-bodied young Americans who feel entitled to be taken care of by the government—to those who want to benefit from the fruit of other people’s labor.
Obama might appeal to people who switch to Vonage due to unpaid phone bills, but I don’t think he’ll get very far with the slacker vote, even if they appeal to him which I’m sure they don’t. Obama wants to put people to work, and he wants to put the government to work, too.
Report comment to moderator
KAYVEE: Liberals use the opposite point of view [pro-choice] as their litmus test . . .
There is only one essential litmus test in politics since Reagan — the progressive personal income tax. Democrats have tried to defer the test rather than bravely turning up the flame on the Bunsen burner. They would love to use the pro-choice
argument as a substitute, but it’s no more than a diversion from the main battle.
Report comment to moderator
#52 — “So does a hard working government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
While the founders spin in their graves we ask what is wrong with the education system in this country? Most don’t have an answer or think there is a problem. Allow me to offer a prime example.
#52 — “Without government, people wouldn’t have as much work, would have to work too hard for what they get, and would spend too much of what they get for essential services,”
You completely ignore the other half of the equation—which doesn’t surprise me—as you probably don’t know that government workers must be paid with money from somewhere for all the essential work they provide for those too lazy to do it themselves. Since government generates nothing of marketable value to exchange for money to pay it’s workers, it must take it from somewhere else. That somewhere else is you, Mr. Taxpayer unless you fall into the privileged class of folks who don’t pay taxes and only take service from the government.
Tell me again how you want to pay for things others will not or cannot provide for themselves regardless of actual need. If you are really that magnanimous and caring, tell me about how you are sending all your extra money to the US Treasury or to a multitude of charities. You certainly are a rarity and should be recognized for your work.
Report comment to moderator
#56 — “that people can be discharged from the military for being homosexual,”
The list of offenses one can be discharged for is long and not limited in any way to one group of individuals—they apply to everyone. All military personnel are equal under those rules and there are sexual offenses that specifically apply to heterosexuals as well. I believe your problem with current policy lies with Bill Clinton—your savior president.
As with anything else in life, I’d suggest that if you have a problem with the rules of an employer under which you must operate or behave, go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to join.
Cousin . . . if the partner is specifically named in the will, how can there be any question as to the intent or wishes of the deceased? People have left fortunes to complete strangers over family objections and made it stick. Why should this be different?
“They just would like the right to conduct their private affairs on the same basis as heterosexuals do.”
Have you ever heard of a contract? Since you are advocating a change to what might be called “cultural law,” with which a large majority disagrees, you might have to work around your perceived problems legally. It seems a binding legal contract might work. NJLawyer would know.
Gotta run.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
Speed limits are indeed the law. If I break them, then I don’t have a right to complain if convicted. And I would be dead wrong to vote for a politician who campaigned with policies and promises that ignored those laws.
Making policy as if such laws did not exist is unjustified. That leads to disrespect for the law and more chaotic behavior.
Report comment to moderator
I love the way Anlir and Luke, our resident gays, keep pretending they haven’t seen my question about the gay man accusing Obama of being into cocaine and gay sex.
They’ve seen the question, alright. But they’re obviously feeling a little conflict of interest.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: If I break them, then I don’t have a right to complain if convicted.
Nobody is complaining that Meskins are convicted of illegal entry. We are declaring, with as much shrillness as possible, that the law requires Meskins to be treated as innocent of the crime of illegal entry until convicted.
If continuing the age-old practice of wetback imigration were truly “wrong” then I think the Republicans would have passed laws to eliminate the evil, as some wanted to do, but they did not. Therefore, against the early rising of Meskin day laborers there continues to be no law, pretty much as St. Paul predicted there would not be.
Not stopping illegal entry isn’t a crime. The Christian tradition of the west recognizes the sanctity of ancient paths above boundaries and the rights of property. Where there is an ancient path, a fence without a gate or a style is a wicked thing. Meskins have been crossing the border without documentation since 1848. Meskin immigrants follow an ancient path to the lands of their ancestors. God Bless them.
Report comment to moderator
. . . tell me about how you are sending all your extra money to the US Treasury or to a multitude of charities.
I’ll go along with higher taxes for everyone, but not just for me. I won’t contribute voluntarily, but will if you are compelled to pay too, using the same tax table. I think my taxes will be more effective with your tax payments piled on. And I will get the additional satisfaction of knowing that government is compelling you to do The Right Thing.
In previous threads I’ve explained the economic story of how taxes create prosperity, but it goes so against Republican doctrine that some readers simply blank out. It’s not that complicated, ROND. You can discover the proof yourself, if you sit quietly in your wing chair by the fire with your Budwiser (but without FOX noise).
Report comment to moderator
#60: People have left fortunes to complete strangers over family objections and made it stick.
Name some. You can’t. In the late 1800’s laws were changed to protect families. During a time of tragedy, the unscrupulous would take advantage of a family or bereaved widow. Every state has some type of law protecting the family, and that means “related by blood”. Typically, it’s half to the widow and the other half divided among biological or legally adopted children.
There exists story after story where a surviving partner was stripped of every thing they own to give to a family that may have even disowned the deceased.
It’s like the conservative religious have this determined ignorance about how they want the world to be. They don’t care how it is. They insist Iraq is free, when they have put Islam into their constitution as the State Religion. They insist gays want “special” rights, when they don’t even have “equal” rights. They don’t even know any gays. It’s just evil. Whether it’s science or just plain meanness to innocent American citizens, religious dogma, no matter how dirty or mean, trumps compassion. I have to ask again, what kind of people are they?
#60: they apply to everyone. All military personnel are equal under those rules and there are sexual offenses that specifically apply to heterosexuals as well.
I can’t tell if you are lying on purpose or just ignorant. As we know from the recent marine that was raped, murdered and burned, the military rarely wants to step in if it’s heterosexual.
When I was in the service, married solders messed around all the time (hetro) and were rarely given more than a verbal slap on the wrist. You see what I mean about insisting the world is the way you want it to be? You refuse to see suffering when it’s people you have a mystical agenda against.
#62: keep pretending they haven’t seen my question about the gay man accusing Obama of being into cocaine and gay sex.
When Craig was accused, at least a half dozen others came forward. The same with Haggard. The same with Foley. When it’s one guy and no others come forward, he’s probably deranged and deserves to be ignored. Don’t you agree?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth #58: How many Pro-life candidates for national office have been supported by the Democrat party? Isn’t there still a pro-choice plank in their platform? Will pro-life Democrats get to speak at the convention this time?
Report comment to moderator
#46: Prove this with facts
Oh yea, this from a Christian, you got that, one of your own:
http://lifestream.org/blog/?p=158
Report comment to moderator
When Craig was accused, at least a half dozen others came forward. The same with Haggard.
That’s not true. Once again you’ve shown how little regard you have for facts or truth, just like when you asked me why lots of Bible colleges ban interracial dating, when none of the ones I’ve ever heard of do.
No, a half dozen men did not come forward when Craig was accused. Craig was outed a couple years ago by Mike Rogers of Blog Active. Nobody, which is a half dozen minus 6, “came forward” then. This past year he was arrested for indecency in a restroom. Once again, nobody came forward. It was only after the Idaho Statesman put a reporter on the story that these men surfaced. The reporter is the one who talked them into “coming forward”; they didn’t do it on their own, and it was a couple years after he was accused.
Why do you just make stuff up?
Report comment to moderator
KAYEE
All Democrats are pro-choice as well as pro-life. Some are passively anti-abortion in states that gave high vote margins to Bush. Mary Landrieu for example will vote as y’all tell her to, if you force a vote upon her, but she won’t ever sponsor such a bill herself nor spontaneously take to the floor to denounce abortion. As you know, KAYVEE, everyone who wants to use the police to stop abortion and the courts to punish it is the kind of person who will want to join the Republican party. Democrats don’t have to turn them away. People who favor compulsory gestation tend to want government to address a whole array of moral hazzards. The more interesting question is on your doorstep, KAYVEE. Would Republicans support a candidate who believes judges should protect a person’s constitutional right to privacy?
Report comment to moderator
#67: Why do you just make stuff up?
In December 2007, eight gay men came forward to the Idaho Statesman newspaper alleging either sexual encounters with Craig, or attempts by Craig to engage in sexual encounters. Four of the men gave graphic, recorded details of their alleged sexual encounters to the newspaper, which in turn published them on their web site.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/226703.html
The reason Craig hasn’t filed any lawsuit against this paper is because, uh, well. Hey, if this is such a patent lie, why not fight it? Things that make you go hmmmmm.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train,
Do you really think I’m going to take you and this Sinclair guy seriously? You need to spend less time in Ron Paul chat rooms and seek out reality.
There is a new adjective beginning with R you are starting to resemble, but I’ll humor you. If I don’t, you might freak out and start breaking stuff.
Larry Sinclair’s (or anyone else’s) YouTube video did not affect my vote at all.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, thanks for proving my point, that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The Craig homosexuals did NOT come forward when he was first accused of having sex with men in restrooms back in 2005 or 2006.
And they did NOT come forward immediately after his Minnesota arrest came to light in late summer. December is NOT late summer.
And they only came forward MONTHS LATER, after a reporter had been working on the story for months.
Why do you just make stuff up, and then, to defend yourself, post stuff that makes it clear you just make this stuff up?
Next you’ll be posting an article that says no Bible colleges ban interracial dating as proof of your recent contention that lots of Bible colleges ban interracial dating.
Report comment to moderator
#68: just like when you asked me why lots of Bible colleges ban interracial dating
Considering what you write, why would I ask you anything? I might ask if you had ever been to college, but that’s about it. I’m not aware of any colleges that ban interracial dating now. But, just a few short years ago, it was a different story.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/marchweb-only/53.0.html
http://badgerherald.com/news/2002/03/04/south_carolina_colle.php
http://www.grame.qc.ca/intercouple_dating.html
Report comment to moderator
#72: And they only came forward MONTHS LATER, after a reporter had been working on the story for months.
Let’s snap back to this plain of existance. Finding a story is what reporters do. At least, that was what I heard. Once again:
The reason Craig hasn’t filed any lawsuit against this paper is because, uh, well. Hey, if this is such a patent lie, why not fight it? Things that make you go hmmmmm.
Report comment to moderator
Rond at #60: #56 — “that people can be discharged from the military for being homosexual,”
The list of offenses one can be discharged for is long and not limited in any way to one group of individuals—they apply to everyone. All military personnel are equal under those rules and there are sexual offenses that specifically apply to heterosexuals as well.
Heterosexuals can be discharged for doing certain things. Homosexuals can be discharged just for being.
It’s called “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but in fact, they can be discharged even when they don’t tell.
Report comment to moderator
Do you really think I’m going to take you and this Sinclair guy seriously?
Uh, Luke, I’m not taking sides. It’s you that has the natural affinity for gay Larry Sinclair, not me.
I just think it’s funny watching you an Anlir dodge the question. If you answer it one way, you’re calling a gay man a liar. If you answer it the other way, you’re calling Obama not only a liar, but a DL brutha.
Report comment to moderator
#76: I just think it’s funny watching you an Anlir dodge the question. If you answer it one way, you’re calling a gay man a liar. If you answer it the other way, you’re calling Obama not only a liar, but a DL brutha.
When Craig was accused, at least a half dozen (thanks to you, we now know it was eight) others came forward. The same with Haggard (Haggard left physical evidence). The same with Foley (again, physical evidence). When it’s one guy and no others come forward, he’s probably deranged and deserves to be ignored. Don’t you agree?
Report comment to moderator
Night Train at #62: I love the way Anlir and Luke, our resident gays, keep pretending they haven’t seen my question about the gay man accusing Obama of being into cocaine and gay sex.
Why should anybody take seriously such a wild accusation? Obama’s never shown any sign of being either homosexual or into drugs, so why should anyone give that allegation any merit at all?
I also don’t care that he’s offered to take a polygraph. Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable. Did you know the FBI rejects half of its job applicants solely based on their failing a polygraph, even when there’s no evidence otherwise of their doing anything wrong? Do you imagine that half of the people who apply for jobs at the FBI are hiding their drug use or contacts with foreign intelligence agents?
There are very good reasons that polygraph tests are not admissible in court.
Report comment to moderator
The reason Craig hasn’t filed any lawsuit against this paper is because, uh, well. Hey, if this is such a patent lie, why not fight it? Things that make you go hmmmmm.
ARE YOU ON DRUGS?
I NEVER DENIED THAT CRAIG IS GAY.
WE’RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT WHETHER CRAIG IS GAY.
YOU SAID THE FACT THAT NOBODY HAS ALREADY COME FORWARD TO BACK UP LARRY SINCLAIR MEANS IT’S PROBABLY NOT TRUE, BECAUSE AS SOON AS THESE RUMORS ABOUT CRAIG CAME OUT 6 MEN CAME IMMEDIATELY FORWARD TO CONFIRM THEM.
I SAID NO THEY DIDN’T, IT TOOK A COUPLE YEARS FROM HIS INITIAL OUTING, AND SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER HIS ARREST.
AND YOU COME BACK AND PRETEND LIKE I’M CLAIMING THAT CRAIG ISN’T GAY.
ARE YOU ON DRUGS?
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s never shown any sign of being either homosexual or into drugs,
Um, I hate to break it to you, but in his own autobiography Obama freely admits to past drug use.
Report comment to moderator
And, technically, he would be bisexual, not homosexual.
What are the “signs” that someone is bisexual, anyway? Would we have seen him staring at John Edwards’ behind?
Report comment to moderator
#80: to past drug use
As opposed to Bush being an alcoholic? I have to admire Obama for being honest. Bush signed an affidavit saying he had never been arrested nor convicted of a crime, and then we found out he lied about both. Conservatives just don’t know what to make of an honest person. It’s too foreign. They’re not used to it.
What I said, “When Craig was accused, at least a half dozen others came forward.”
What you said I said, “BECAUSE AS SOON AS THESE RUMORS ABOUT CRAIG CAME OUT 6 MEN CAME IMMEDIATELY FORWARD TO CONFIRM THEM.”
See any differences????
What you asked me, “ARE YOU ON DRUGS?”
No, but since you appear to be delusional, I have to ask the same question of you.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train misunderstands my silence. You see, I have a list of names of folk on here that I generally don’t respond to. He’s on it. If I perceive that a person is merely trying to drag me into a fight, I’m especially careful.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train at #80: Um, I hate to break it to you, but in his own autobiography Obama freely admits to past drug use.
Yes, I know, in his distant past. But not in many years, nor has anyone else suggested as such. Speculation that he might be is just as baseless and sleazy as people suggesting that Bush is drinking again.
And nobody’s ever insinuated he might ever have engaged in homosexual activity. That charge comes from nowhere.
Report comment to moderator
So, SteveG, are you saying you know for a fact that Larry Sinclair is lying?
Report comment to moderator
The following came from a Crossfire transcript.
“Well, during the impeachment debacle, we did an investigation which resulted in the resignation of Bob Livingston and others and we have continued this investigation and for eight months we’ve been looking into George W. Bush’s background. And we’ve found out in the early 1970s he was involved in an abortion in Texas, and I just think that it’s sad that the mainstream media, who’s (sic) aware of this story, won’t ask him that question … We’ve got all kinds of proof on this issue… If the abortion issue is true then that puts him lower on the morality scale than Bill Clinton.”
“When I said that we had proof, I am referring to knowing who the girl was, knowing who the doctor was that performed the abortion, evidence from girlfriends of hers at the time, who knew about the romance and the subsequent abortion. The young lady does not want to go public, and without her willingness, we don’t feel that we’re on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because she would say it never happened… One of the things that interested us was that this abortion took place before Roe v. Wade in 1970, which made it a crime at the time. I’d just like the national media to ask him (Bush) if abortion is okay for him and his family, but not for the rest of America…”
Doesn’t mean it’s true. But it has been around for awhile on the web on dozens of sites. Apparently, the woman does admit she went into the hospital for a “uterus scraping” six months after she started dating Bush, but it wasn’t an abortion. Also, it seems her husband was very surprised about all of this.
Report comment to moderator
So I go and find the Larry Sinclair video at:
http://www.webspawner.com/users/islamfake/index.html
The guy is so gross. Does he even have teeth? He said he was tired and drugged. Who knows whose stuff he ate. Too bad he didn’t save a “spot” like Monica.
Report comment to moderator
Who knows whose stuff he ate.
Keep that kind of vile filth off here, please. That’s disgusting.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!