Monday, October 06, 2008

Palin on Hell

I keep deciding not to post anything more on Sarah Palin. And then, say it ain't so, Joe, she goes an keeps sayin stuff.


Palin regaled the cheering crowd with a story about how she was reading her Starbucks mocha cup yesterday, which featured a quotation from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

“Now she said it, I didn’t,” Palin said of Albright. “She said, ‘There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t support other women.’”

The crowd roared its approval, but according to several sources, Albright actually said, “there’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t help other women.”

“OK, now thank you so much for receiving that well—I didn’t know how that was going to go over,” Palin told the southern California crowd. “And now California, let’s see what a comment that I just made how that is turned into whatever it’ll be turned into tomorrow in the newspaper.”


Yea, that press sure does overact when you tell people they are going to hell if they don't vote for you. OK, OK, I admit, I'm exaggerating. It's only women that will be going to hell for not voting for her. And she was just joking, after all. Geez, lighten up, people.

I wonder though, about Mayor Palin making women pay for their own rape kits in Wasilla. Do you think that special place in Hell might now be called The Sarah Palin Wing, given her lack of support for women?

Oh lighten up, people. I'm just making a joke.

16 comments:

Robert J. Day said...

According to FactCheck.org this long standing rumor is not what it sounds like: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html

Charging a victims insurance for medical procedures is common. If you were hit by a drunk driver, mugged by a thug, or hit over the head by your neighbor, who pays the medical bills? You or your insurance. So what seems to be a budget debate for local government in Alaska is the harsh reality of life. To couch this issue as you and the biased Huffington Post suggest makes Palin appear as if she heartlessly and with malice wants to make rape victims suffer even more. Issues are usually a little more complex than political sound bites want us to believe.

As for her view on hell, I am not sure what you are trying to suggest since your own Mennonite faith confesses a faith in a real and literal hell.

Of course, Palin is making a joke in this instance and should not be taken so literal. Much like her statement about being able to see Russia from her house. Does she really believe that women who do not vote for her will go to hell? No more than she really sees Russian from her house.

Dan S said...

Robert, I making a joke (apparently not very well), not a theological point about hell.

Also, a rape kit is used to gather evidence, so it isn't like going to the doctor after being mugged. It's like charging someone to investigate a crime committed against them.

Even if it weren't, not all women have insurance. Palin may not want or desire the harshest treatment to go the least among us, but that is what happens under her and McCain's governing philosophy and policies.

Robert J. Day said...

Dan,

Your point about rape kit evidence is well taken. Crime victims should not pay for the investigation of the crime committed against them.

I did not get your joke. Chalk that up to my hyper partisan sensitivity, not to your failure to be funny. I usually get your material.

The Palin hate on the web has sometimes been so vicious and viral and of the kind I do not understand nor have seen before. Your site is not of that kind. In fact, it is a safe place to make a pro Palin comments (although I failed to make my point) because I do believe you to be a sincere and level headed person.

I will keep reading with interest and be more careful to correctly support my point.

Thanks you.

Dan S said...

Thanks Robert, I appreciate that. After re-reading my post, I think the joke may have been vague, so I updated the text to make it a little more obvious.

As I've said before, I do appreciate your presence here. It's important to be in dialog, especially among those who disagree on certain issues. And my natural snarkiness often does not aid in that.

Regarding Palin, that's a messy topic. I think the reaction on the net is one of frustration and fear. Frustration, because the choice was seen as so cynical by McCain, but presented as socially concious. There's a bit of the Clarance Thomas effect, in taking someone from a group with historically less power and using that person to further undercut the power of that group.

I think the fear comes into play when we consider McCain's age and health issues. She could stand a good chance of being president, and seems to be like George Bush in worldview, except more so.

Robert Sievers said...

From a conservative viewpoint, Sarah Palin seems nothing like George Bush.

Although they both believe in man-made global warming, so maybe there are SOME similarities.

PG said...

The aw shucks inarticulateness Joe Sixpack pandering ("Joe Sixpack! Is this really what we want in a leader? Someone who drinks, is stupidly blunt, and undereducated! Really?) is exactly how George Bush was elected in the first place, appealing to the lowest common denominator. It was deceit then and it is deceit now.

It isn't these so-called leaders that has been the most infuriating these past eight years. It is the way in which so many people have fallen sway to their deception, good Germans going along with what their leaders told them to believe. I cannot for the life of me understand it. We've had years of neglect, greed, torture, and war, all cloaked in patriotism and so-called Christian values.

A black man would never get away with this awful kind of behavior. http://tinyurl.com/4yblb9

I can't take another four years of the immorality and deceit we've seen with Bush's administration. And I am appalled that intelligent men like Robert Day and Robert Sievers would support such behavior. To what end? I can't comprehend it. And no one has ever explained it to me.

Under GOP rule, our country and we as individuals with souls have suffered deeply, morally, financially, and as citizens of the world.
http://tinyurl.com/3ep5hp

brownie the infidel said...

Does that mean that if you don't support athletics (an athletic supporter??!?) you're going to Perdue?

And by the way (I'm feeling a bit blasphemous today, so here we go), "burn in hell" is more of a medieval fantasy designed to draw worshipers to church, than a biblical truth. In fact hell or "shoal" was a little valley outside the walls of Jerusalem where they burned the trash, not a place of eternal torment for the soul.

Which brings me to heaven....

Jesus talked a lot about bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to earth. Why would he say that? If heaven is heaven and hell is just a trash dump, and earth is just earth, how could you bring the Kingdom of Heaven to earth?? Well, we should know, if we really have ears to hear the Navarene's teachings that is, that the Kingdom of Heaven rules in our HEARTS. And I would suggest that it exists ONLY in our hearts, and not some fluffy white cloud place with gold lined streets and millions of virgins walking around waiting for men to arrive and deflower them. Which begs the question, what happens to the virgins after the man has had his jollies? To the trash dump???
Hmmm.

Just spitballin'

Now back to your regularly scheduled politcall rants....

PG said...

Frank Says GOP Housing Attacks Racially Motivated
http://www.truthout.org/100708M
The Associated Press: "Rep. Barney Frank said Monday that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated. The Massachusetts Democrat, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the GOP is appealing to its base by blaming the country's mortgage foreclosure problem on efforts to expand affordable housing through the Community Reinvestment Act."

PG here: Why? Why Sarah Palin and John McCain, who abandoned his crippled wife? Do you think you'll have more money with Republicans? Do you think you'll be better protected from terrorists? I demand an answer from the two Roberts here, who claim moral superiority for their (as I see it, totally corrupt) political party.

Robert J. Day said...

This is my interpretation of what I have researched about the financial crisis. Where appropriate, I link to credible sources for my information.

The whole situation started with good intentions. Changes in deregulation made by President Clinton but even urged and supported earlier by the senior President Bush.

"In July the President asked the four banking regulators to reform CRA, to reduce paperwork in process and reward performance, and to get that done by January 1, 1994. We're delighted to report that that has been accomplished on schedule. And in conjunction with the President's Community Development Bank and financial institution legislation, which recently passed the House of Representatives, CRA reform will generate billions of dollars in new lending and extend basic banking services to the inner cities and to distressed rural communities around the country."

See 1993 Press release http://clinton6.nara.gov/1993/12/1993-12-08-briefing-by-bentsen-and-rubin.text.html

These changes and more emphasis on Fannie Mae's programs accomplished two positive things during the 1990's.

1. It provided affordable housing to more Americans. See this 1999 article from the Los Angles Times, http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

"Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.

"In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected."

I bought my first home in 1994 as a result of these new programs and rule changes. Like thousand of other I could not have done it without them.

2. This had a positive affect on the economy since it is so driven by the housing and auto industries.

The economy grew so much during that time because home purchasing rules changed, most notable the required down payment percentages.

"It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

That’s a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression."

More people buying houses fueled the economy as families either upgraded to better houses or bought their very first home. This also allowed many people to make a ton of money in real estate, construction, and banking. However, this "housing bubble" was doomed to finally reach an end. There is a limit on how many people can buy a home.

"Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce.” But with the housing market still sizzling, minority unemployment down and Fannie Mae enjoying record profits (over $3.4 billion last year), it doesn’t appear that the limit has been reached."

Where could they find more home buyers to keep positive growth? Answer: they would lower the threshold even more.

"All signs point toward a high-velocity collision this summer between two strong-willed protagonists: HUD’s Cuomo and Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D. Raines, the first African American to hold the post. Better they reach a reasonable agreement that provides more fuel for the extraordinary boom transforming millions of minority families from renters into owners."

At the same time some groups like ACORN were advocating for even more affordable housing for minorities and those traditionally left out of home ownership.

"We are probably the most aggressive organization around in terms of advocating for people to get loans," says Ismene Speliotis, director of ACORN Housing. "

See 2002 Christian Science Monitor article. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0128/p02s02-usgn.html

This is a good idea in and of itself but when used as a tool to increase profits and market share through the housing market it is dangerous proposition. In the same SC Monitor article sighted above you will see the beginning of what we are experiencing now.

"Indeed, a recent study of black and white neighborhoods with comparable incomes in New York City found that denial rates for blacks were double those for whites at conventional banks. Even blacks comfortably in the middle class - those with incomes above $60,000 - were more likely to be rejected for a home loan than a white family making under $40,000.
That's created a flourishing market for subprime lenders - those that charge higher upfront costs and higher interest rates to hedge against increased risks - in predominantly black neighborhoods. The study, which was done by the office of Sen. Charles Schumer (D) of New York, found that 51 percent of the loans in predominantly black neighborhoods were from subprime lenders, compared with only 13 percent in the white neighborhoods."

"But when they looked for the cause of the disparity, Senator Schumer said it wasn't because banks shy away from loaning in minority neighborhoods. In fact, the opposite tends to be true, because the federal government has set up incentives to encourage loans."

These new changes brought thousands of families into the housing market which would set all kinds of profit records on Wall Street. But, it was also having the opposite desired affect by drastically raising the housing prices (the law of supply and demand). So houses were getting more expensive (I saw my home increase in $60,000 in value in just six years) and people with fewer resources and higher credit risk were getting more risky loans to purchase them.

See this 2005 article for Wall Street Journal http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/markettrends/20051223-simon.html

"In Tucson, roughly 60% of first-time home buyers make no down payment and instead now use 100% financing to get into the market, up from 30% two years ago, says Renee Booker, president of Long Mortgage, the mortgage arm of Long Realty."

In 1999, President Clinton signed into law a Republican sponsored bill Graham-Leach-Bliley Act) that created the most sweeping banking regulatory changes to date. It repealed the banking regulations of the Glass-Steagall Act established by FDR during the Great Depression era.

See http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/12/banking.reform/index.html

"The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated." http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

While it was a “bi-partisan” bill, certain key figures had vested motivation in passing this law.

"It was sweaty, it was tense, but it had momentum," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) said of the final bargaining session. He and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut) whose states are home to Wall Street and the banking industry (New York) and the insurance industry (Connecticut), helped broker the agreement." http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

Some immediately saw the danger in all these changes and warned that during an economic down turn the government might have to provide a bail out plan of historical proportions.

Check out this September 1999 New York Times article http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

"In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans."

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."

By 2003, the whole thing was not going as well as reported, Fannie Mae was caught cooking the books. Here are articles covering the story over a three year span.

http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/business/11fannie.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/05/fannie_mae_expe.html

Republicans called for more oversight but Democrats cried foul and accused Republicans of racism and other things because by this time the mandate was for banks to issue 50% of their mortgages to minorities.

Here is a U-tube presentation showing actual clips from the Senate Hearings covered by C-SPAN. It presents a history of the current financial crisis. It is not a primary source and is certainly put together from a certain political bias so take it for what it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w

Also read this 2004 Opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal blasting democrats, particularly Barney Frank for their role in the corruption.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109770752803244715.html?mod=Review-Outlook-US

"Here's a case of misplaced moral outrage if we've ever seen one. Mr. Franks is mad about the salaries when he really should be mad at the rigged political game that has made them possible. Fannie's regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, has reported that Fannie has been cooking its books. Add that to the increasing evidence that Fannie has been ignoring its mission to provide affordable housing, and we wonder if Mr. Frank doesn't need an eye checkup."

"Ditto for the good liberals in the Congressional Black Caucus. Members of this group are often the loudest defenders of Fannie and her brother, Freddie Mac. Can it be that the annual donations made by the Fannie Mae Foundation to the Caucus have blurred their vision too?"

In response to the corruption, President Bush proposed changes in these programs in 2003,

"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

But, this was opposed by the Democratic controlled Congress, and particularly by Barney Frank.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Barney Frank, is the current chair of the House Financial Services Committee, which has primarily responsible for the oversight of Fannie and Freddie. He is now attempting to deflect the blame off him and Fannie Mae and onto the evils of Republican racism.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/barney-frank-sa.html

A conflict of interest may have existed all along if reports are correct regarding Franks love connection to Fannie Mae employee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/frank121898.htm

For this reason or perhaps just pure ideology sake, Frank has always opposed any changes in the regulation and oversight of these programs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Contrary to much of what is reported, or not reported in this case, Senator McCain, in 2005, proposed changes in these programs.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

Again it was opposed and stopped by the Democratic controlled congress.

So what we have basically is an Enron situation in a government sponsored agency that has been covered up for many years and it finally busted open into the open market. Because banks used Fannie and Freddie to sale so many risky mortgages they have been left with more defaults than they have money to cover.

Plus, you add the same practice of careless loaning that was going on in the auto industry, credit cards, (I use to get 4-6 credit card offers a day in the mail. Not anymore) and the business sector and you have the current disaster.

Who were the politicians who benefited most from this fiasco?

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

The disturbing part is that Obama in just three years in office received the second most contributions, almost equal to Dodd’s 26 years worth. Why?

Research further and you will find that before Obama came to the Senate he was a lawyer for ACORN (which is under investigation in several states for voter fraud but that’s another developing story http://www.bakersfield.com/894/story/572989.html ).

They were one of the chief lobbyists for the regulatory changes in 1999 and provided stiff resistance for the 2003 proposed Republican changes and now getting a piece of the bailout pie.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10072008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/rescue_rewards_housing_hustlers_132399.htm

"All this comes on top of the $5 billion ACORN-backed housing bill passed in July, which hands $600 million-plus to ACORN and similar groups to bail out homeowners under water and help countless more risky loan prospects.
During the floor debate on Friday, Reps. Frank and Waters assured Democratic colleagues that they had personally lobbied Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson on these measures and would press him to consent to "do the kind of loan modifications we've been urging."
Waters exulted: "We're in charge! . . . We own them now."
If the banks and others that collect payments on these distressed mortgages don't write down enough loan principal to keep Rep. Frank happy, he threatens hearings and new legislation next year."

"He'll have the backing of ACORN. ACORN President Maude Hurd warns that her "members plan to hold Secretary Paulson accountable and ensure he uses this authority to make streamlined loan modifications a priority for struggling American families."

There is a lot more to the story and others have summarized it better than I have. The story continues to develop and I don’t think we have seen the end of it.

Other sources for consideration:

History of Fannie and Freddie http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e3e1d654-5288-11dd-9ba7-000077b07658,dwp_uuid=5db90a0e-4e6c-11dd-ba7c-000077b07658,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fw

Graham-Leach-Bliley Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Trillion Dollar Shakedown http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
Breaking the Banks Bill Clintons Policies (1993) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_/ai_13699788

1992 Presidential Campaign and Bank Regulators http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DC1F30F932A05752C0A964958260

Clinton and the current Financial Crisis http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2087375/posts

Current Crisis and Dodd http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentaryhubbard0914.artsep14,0,5673162.story

Five Key Players http://www.sermonzone.com/blog/2008/09/22/fannie-mae-five-five-key-players-who-broke-the-system/

Bailout and Barney Frank http://www.lynchreport.com/2008/09/getting-to-bottom-with-barney-frank.html

Obama’s Free Rid on Fannie Mae http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/09/29/obamas-free-ride-on-fannie-mae/

The Fed Invited the Mortgage Mess http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=0

Even SNL understands that the Democrats are to blame. http://news.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1123929&srvc=home&position=also

PG said...

Thanks, Robert D. It's not what I asked, but thanks just the same.

What I asked, or meant to ask, was not who to blame for the financial crisis. (And I don't really consider Saturday Night Live as a reliable source.)

What I want to know are the positive aspects of McCain and Palin? What attributes or acts make them preferable, for YOU?

Positions on gay rights?
Abortion?
Finances?
Military issues?
Civil liberties and freedoms?
Truthfulness?
Openness?
Honesty?
Tolerance?
Gaining all the oil resources for our country?
War?

I don't care about ideologies. What practical things do you think they would provide to the soul of a nation?

That is what I want to know. No one ever could make a reasonable claim that I heard for Bush, either.

What is it?

It seems to me that whenever put into a corner regarding, first the war and now the financial situation, the Republican powers never, never, never admit making any mistakes (or crimes, for that matter). Bush couldn't think of any mistakes he made. Palin can't admit to any Achilles heel.

They just blame and deflect, much like your answer. Why?

Want to know what I think?

I think it's all a big junior high school football game (cheerleaders Palin and Bush included): we're number one, we're the best, we never do anything wrong, and we are out to destroy the opposition.

The pep rallies I attended when I was teaching in an all-white rural high school a few years ago always concluded with chants -- led by the football captain -- of "we're gonna KILL 'EM, we're gonna KILL 'EM." Metaphorical, of course, but the way of thinking persists.

My question stands.

What is good and true about Bush, McCain, Palin?

Why would YOU personally endorse them?

I still want to know very much.

PG said...

Deep down, too, I think it is racial prejudice. And you are never going to admit that. You'll always deflect that possibility.

http://www.commondreams.org/print/33152

PG said...

When I spoke of the football mindset, I was particularly thinking of Republicans versus Democrats. Maybe the classic Republican response about their position would be "less government" (which answers nothing for me, since -- as Robert Day's long post would seem to indicate -- Reagan was the classic deregulation person and Clinton came into play by approving deregulation -- and so on. Ideologies may be short cuts, but they don't really provide answers about an individual.

I can't seem to shut up, either.

I think I could, though, come up with a list of reasons I would vote for Obama. I am waiting to read the list of why the Roberts would vote for Palin. Or McCain.

Robert Sievers said...

pg, here is the list. Not complete, not in order.

1. Financial. While it doesn't help me much, I know a lot of eldery with stocks, 401Ks, and IRAs that an Obama administration will masacre. You can already see the market declining. How muhc of that is due to the expectation of increased capital gains taxes. You tell me.

Experience. Obama has none. MCCain does.

Character. McCain has proven he puts his country first. Obama is just out for a promotion.

Human rights. Our most helpless citizens are being killed. If I were racist, I suppose I would be glad, because more blacks than whites are being killed. I think many democrats don't mind that abortion keeps the black population down, but they are too ashamed to admit it.

Foreign relations. Obama has no idea of what radical Islam is capable of. McCain does. While I personally want to learn Arabic, I don't want me kids to be required to.

Judgement. Obama has totoally misjuedged a number of close associates. How can be expected to judge intentions of people he hardly knows?

Social spending. I went to college on a government grant. That almost destroyed me. We need to stop giving out so much money for entitlements. If I weren't a follower of Christ, I would quit my job, and go on the dole. I would actually bring home more money than I do now. It's true. If obama wins, I am considering doing so anyway.

Education. Currently, only rich people can choose what schools to send their children to. That should be a right for all classes, not just the elite. McCain stands for choice and competition. Obama does not.

Duplicity. Obama is constantly misrepresenting himself and his record. McCain is not.

How many more do you want?

PG said...

I disagree pretty much completely with all the items on your list, particularly as related to the character and ambitions of McCain.

But that's how you see things and I appreciate you itemizing them. I believe you actually do believe them, although some are related more to fear than to faith or reason, and there would be no point in my contradicting you.

And I guess Robert D.'s answer boiled down essentially to your first answer: financial (and many of your answers were also financial related, as in education and social spending).

Whoever wins this election is going to have his hands full.

Jesus wept.

PS: I think you SHOULD quit your job and "go on the dole." (Is there still a dole?) Jesus said to sell everything you have and give it to the poor. I think he believed what he said, too.

PG said...

October 8, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Palin's Kind of Patriotism
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Criticizing Sarah Palin is truly shooting fish in a barrel. But given the huge attention she is getting, you can't just ignore what she has to say. And there was one thing she said in the debate with Joe Biden that really sticks in my craw. It was when she turned to Biden and declared: "You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America, which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic."

What an awful statement. Palin defended the government's $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic.

I only wish she had been asked: "Governor Palin, if paying taxes is not considered patriotic in your neighborhood, who is going to pay for the body armor that will protect your son in Iraq?

More at
http://tinyurl.com/palintax

PG said...

And, even though you didn't really ask, here's my list of (some of the) reasons I'm voting for Obama.

1) Obama is a black man. This is a historic moment in America. The worst and most destructive presidency in US history may be followed by the first black presidency. I wouldn't vote for anyone just because he or she is black. But, in the case of Obama, it is a big plus. To elect a black man, the American population would show it has made great strides in overcoming an evil past history of slavery, segregation, and intolerance.

2) Obama is a liberal. As the recent financial crisis has shown, government can and must participate in our lives. Unfortunately, we only acknowledged this when the money (I refuse to call it wealth; it's only money) of the rich, through deregulated misuse, caused the money of all to be jeopardized. Health care, Social Security, schools, the infrastructure, aid and relief after natural disasters should rely upon the public good. For McCain and Bush and Palin to decry taxation is to deny the very purpose and heart of participation in government. Government must be, at least in a large part, a way for us all to help each other, not compete against each other.

3) Obama is intelligent. There is a long history of anti-intellectualism in the United States. It is one of our country's greatest flaws and weaknesses. I have no more tolerance for commonness and slang ("You betcha, Joe Sixpack!" says Sarah Palin) and fake folksiness from rich politicians. It is as much a lie as the outright deceptions the Bush administration told to our faces again and again. Bush could not write a book about his life. Neither could McCain (without help). Why do we claim to value education for our young and then reject strong intelligence in our leaders? Both Bush and McCain were poor students. Obama's academic achievements were made without reliance upon his family's wealth or his race.

4) Obama would be a world leader. The rest of the world overwhelmingly wants Obama to be our president. In addition to liking the character, intelligence, and family strengths Obama demonstrates, the rest of the world would see an Obama presidency as an apology, as an attempt to rectify what is seen around the world as a war of aggression in Iraq, and as a means of restitution for the racism our country has suffered under throughout its history. An Obama presidency would do much to restore the country's good standing and admiration throughout the world, which were lost during the Bush administration.

5) Obama does not stoop to fear. A vote for Obama demonstrates trust and faith, with hope for the future, against great odds in the shambles left from the Bush administration. In addition to outright deception, the opposition has been selling a campaign of fear and doubt ("Who is the real Obama?"). They are consumed by greed and power and they have found that they can get what they want through fear and intimidation. McCain and Palin hawk fear with desperation. They make a mockery of one of the great gifts Jesus brought in his message and his life, his instruction that we should "fear not."