One thing that really bothers me about the Democratic attacks on Sarah Palin is the sneering, jeering classism. She talks like that Minnesota sheriff on “Fargo”; she went to the University of Idaho; she competed in beauty pageants; she goes hunting; she has big hair; she is from a small town in the country; she is married to an oil field worker who races snowmobiles; she has all those kids! How hilarious! How declasse!
Democrats used to be the party of the common man–of people like the Palins–but that was before they were taken over by privileged children of the Sixties and wealthy fashionistas. Republicans back then were party of the country club set. But, though Democrats still champion poor people in their rhetoric and harvest them for their votes; and though Republicans still vote pro-business, the social class dynamics are all awry from what they used to be. The so-called “New Class” of information producers–internet tycoons, teachers, media types–is our new elite, displacing the old middle class that produces tangible products, and the New Class is socially liberal.
At any rate, Democratic activists, before they get too clever in their insults, would do well to remember that folks in battleground states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan talk like Governor Palin. (That’s another thing: the utter rudeness! The commentators would not even call her by her title, Governor, and often didn’t even give her credit for her current job, saying she was just a “small town mayor”!)
Anyway, a backlash against this vicious treatment seems to be setting in. So says New Palin details may help, not hurt - Charles Mahtesian - Politico.com:
Fishing permit violations. A blue-collar husband who racked up a DUI citation as a 22-year-old. An unmarried teenage daughter who is pregnant and a nasty child custody battle involving a family member.
All of this, to one degree or another, has surfaced in recent days as a result of efforts to discredit or undermine Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. But these revelations may have the opposite effect: In one sense, they could reinforce how remarkably unremarkable she is.
So far — and it is hard to tell what the future may hold for Palin’s unexpected national candidacy — the travails of the Palin family probably seem awfully familiar to many average Americans. It is this averageness that makes her such a politically promising running mate for John McCain — and such a dangerous opponent for Democrats.
Here Michele Catalano says how she disagrees with Governor Palin on the issues. “But the last two days of mudslinging against Palin have been so extreme, they have transformed her into an almost sympathetic figure in my eyes. More important, the barbs thrown at her have made me look upon liberals with a level of contempt I have not felt since, well, 2004.”
Here a self-described leftist feminist praises Governor Palin and decries the “misogyny” of her critics.
As one TV pundit (whose name I didn’t catch) said, Sarah Palin is the candidate of those small town, religious, gun-loving folks that were the targets of Barack Obama’s condescension. There are a lot of them. They have an attitude. They used to be Democrats. And they vote.
70 comments ↓
I read a really great article, In Wasilla, Pregnancy Was No Secret , by Time Magazine writer, Nathan Thornburgh.
“So his name is Levi. That’s about the only thing that I didn’t know about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. The rest of the details I picked up almost without trying, while talking about other things with townsfolk — some who know the governor and her family well, some who don’t. It was, more or less, an open secret. And everyone was saying the same thing: the governor’s 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, the father is her boyfriend, and it’s really nobody’s business beyond that…Maybe that means Palin is a little too much Northern Exposure for America….People in Wasilla are Alaskan tough, so not only does a thing like teen pregnancy not seem like anyone’s damn business, but it’s also not seen as the calamity so many people in the lower 48 might think it is. This is dangerous country — it’s not just the roughneck jobs on cable reality shows. It’s real life here.”
ROTFL - “wealthy fashionistas”. That will go into my dictionary of liberal descriptors.
And Michele Catalano also wrote:
“If I’m rushing to the defense of a woman whose core ideologies I oppose, then something pretty bad must be going on. And that something smells like a pungent mixture of hypocrisy and desperation.”
It will be interesting to read the comments from the clymer press about former Democratic VP nominee Joe Lieberman’s speech last night in which he said, “When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, when Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground, John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion and support the surge.”
One columnist commented, “Lieberman’s speech certainly ought to have seemed surprising, but his apostasy is old news.”
An AP writer noted, “Joe Lieberman might have trouble getting a Senate parking pass next year.” Given the vindictiveness described by Michele Catalano, that may be an accurate prediction.
with 2 wars, economic problems etc etc…. palin introduces into the public discourse a spirited defense of her as a common everywoman mother housewife….
wouldn´t it be healthier to defend palin by simply ignoring the background noise and discussing her policy views and experience and qualifications for the highest office? but then what would there be to discuss?
Mc Cain abandoned a wife who waited for him while he was a pow. she had been a beauty queen, but when he returned she was disfigured in a car accident and no longer young and pretty. he was dating his current wife WHILE he was living with his former one, and married his current wife a short time after his divorce was finalized. Is this, as a christian, off limits for me to consider when pondering McCain as president, or should I take this into account as something that reflects on his morals and judgement? If he were a democrat, would you all NOT be discussing this? Be honest.
He said at Rick Warren´s church that he regrets that time. I learned in private confession that repentance involves confessing the details of my sin ( I am sorry for (fill in the blank) , as opposed to a simple I am sorry.) So he is sorry for pursuing and sleeping with a younger woman while he was still living with the wife who waited for him while he was a pow?
the reagans, especially nancy, shunned McCain after that, and even arranged for his abandoned wife to get a job in their campaign and in the white house, and arranged for her to live for a time with the lutheran Ed Meese´s family in san diego , while she was healing from the devastation of McCain abandoning her for another younger woman.
It is a credit to the obama campaign to not dig all this stuff up isn´t it?
interesting to note that NONE of his family from his previous marriage seem to be campaigning with him, either because they don´t want to or because they would be a reminder of some obvious issues……
Thanks for the information, Theresa. Let us know when you locate a sonogram of Bristol’s baby.
Last night, the media clymers on a local unnamed TV (with initials KVUE), noted several times that Bristol Palin’s pregnancy was not relevant to the political qualifications of Gov. Palin for VP. They noted this while repeatedly discussing the effects of the pregnancy on the VP campaign and encouraging viewers to participate in an internet survey on the effects of Bristol’s pregnancy on the GOP’s presidential campaign and later while reporting the results from the impromptu survey (as if it had any statistical value). The survey noted that 60 % said it had not relevant. The report then closed with a brief discussion of the implications of the survey on Bristol’s pregnancy and its effect on the GOP ticket.
fw wrote: Is this, as a christian, off limits for me to consider when pondering McCain as president, or should I take this into account as something that reflects on his morals and judgement?… He said at Rick Warren´s church that he regrets that time.
Moral failures, including financial corruption, homosexual behavior by a politician, or McCain’s adultery and divorce, are legitimate issues to consider.
But what is your motivation, fw, in falsely portraying what John McCain said during Warren’s interview?
When Warren asked both candidates, “What’s been your greatest moral failure?” McCain answered: “My greatest moral failing — and I have been a very imperfect person — is the failure of my first marriage. It’s my greatest moral failure.”
That he did not provide Warren and the TV audience with the titillating details should have been no concern to a Christian viewer. But if you think he was lying in what he said, or if differed from what you heard him say in private confession, and that he does not really think his actions were a moral failure, then say so.
The ugly political talk has always come from both parties. We are commanded against it in Scripture. I am thrilled with the addition of Sarah Palin to the ticket, and the verbal attacks against her are reprehensible. However, I recall the right wing talk shows discussing the “ugliness” of Chelsea Clinton, who was only a child; and the “manliness” of Hilary, of all things. The tongue truly is a harsh weapon.
Again people: Whether Obama, or Palin, or McCain, or Biden are discussed, let him who is without sin….
National and political leaders are not, and will not be, angels. I guess it is because some view the US as God’s particulat gift to humanity, that the expect that archangels will lead. No - we are all sinners in need of a
Saviour. A politician’s personal life is public to some extent, but we should behave with, well, charity. Those that go on fault-finding missions, be they liberal or conservaive or other, engage in behaviour that do not become Christians.
Of Barakles the Silver-tongued
And it came to pass in those days that Soros Augustus decreed that all the world be taxed. And he said to his scribes and teachers of the law “who shall be my face before the people of the land, and the cities of the coasts?” and they answered and said to him “Barakles of the Land of Stinking Water, for he is a very son of Neleus, and is dusky of hue. Such a one cannot be opposed.” “And what shall I do with She Who Must Not Be Named, who believes that she will inherit the throne?” “Sire,” they answered and said, “you but have to sit back and see the works of priests of Media, who are your faithful servants, but do not let She Who Must Not Be Named know we spoke of this to you, for we fear her wrath.”
And Barakles went forth, heralds before him, to proclaim to the people of the coasts that he would command the wind and the waves, and the very heat of the sun, and they would obey him. He promised them many things, if only they would bow before him and call him The Enlightened One.
And it was as the scribes foretold, and the priests of Medea caused many to scorn the name of She Who Must Not Be Named, and at the ending of the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, Barakles received the tribunican laurel upon the Pavement of Olympos-in-the-Amphitheatre. And lo! He stood transfigured in that temple, lit by the light of many suns made by the exhalations many hundreds of tons of carbon, for so did the people of the coasts worship him, that all gave of their footprints unto him.
Of the Chieftain of the Heartlendings
In those days, as was custom, a great contest was held to see who would be the chieftain of the Heartlendings, for Silvestris the Young had come to the end of his alloted reign. Many watched in awe as young heros and old leaders of many campaigns did battle. When the dust cleared, those rumored to be secret Molochites had been defeated, and the young heros had been driven from the field by an old veteran of many campaigns, who once had endured many years tortured in the dungeons of the minions of the Dark Tower. He was battered with many scars and few thought him able, and many thought him wearied and untrusty.Yet he was unbowed and known for victory through subtlty and guile.
Of Sarah of the Midnight Sun
Far away in the Land of the Midnight Sun, where danceth Bifrost in the night; a huntress named Sarah, a great beauty, had fought many battles with untrusty men and had become the ruler of that land by the adoration of her people. Her husband was a great explorer and seeker of treasure, and crafty upon the sea. Their union was blessed with the issue of five children, the eldest a young knight errant to the far, storied land of Uruk, the youngest a babe in arms, with injury that no leech could cure.
And her eldest daughter Bristol came to her mother and said “mother, I am with child, for I knew a man, though thou didst warn me.” And Sarah answered and said unto her “Dear one, thou didst sin greatly, but my love for thee and my grandchild thou bearest is greater than the Beaufort Sea. Be at peace, for we will care for the babe along with his father, and we will keep you safe from the Molochite maeneds and their long knives and breaking glass, and from the Kossacks of Barakles, yea, though we remove to the dread Fever Swamp of the East. “But mother”, asked Bristol, “those swamps have devoured many young warriors who essayed forth to slay Leviathan who dwelleth there, never to be heard of again, or else their shades came forth, as thralls of Leviathan instead.” Be not afraid, my dear one” said Sarah unto her daughter, for we worship not Mammon nor Molech, and shall not be moved.
Of the Battle of Unnumbered Jeers
The Chieftain of the Heartlendings sent messengers to the Land of the Midnight Sun, that Sarah the Huntress should come forth to the City of the Apostle to the Gentiles in the land dear to the feller of trees who bore his name, and the Great Blue Ox, for he knew that she was the appointed to be princess of all Mercia, for word of her deeds had reached him, though a thousand leagues distant.
Magi from afar came to Soros Augustus saying “where is she, who is to be princess of the Mercians? For this shall be her sign; she shall be mother and grandmother of a babe at once.” Soros was greatly troubled when he heard this, and he told his servant Barakles to send his Kossack horde guised as people of the land, to the crofts and villages of the Heartlendings, to discover all the babies under ten months of age, and to defile the names of their mothers and of any who might escape their onslaught - though their skills gained in slaying fifty millions of children across all Mercia, were great. For it was an abomination to Soros Augustus and Barakles that any infants should not be sacrificed to Molech or enslaved to Mammon.
And he summoned his scribes and told them to write “no mother should leave her baby for work, if the babe be more than 10 months old, and thus weighed a person by the Illini Law. No mother shall let a suckling under ten months live, lest it keep her from the cogs she must turn for the sake of the great god Mammon. All children over 10 months must be given into the hands of the maenads and their eunuchs to be raised as my children.” And the scribes said unto him, Lord, how may we do this, since what you say doth contradict itself?” And he answered and said unto them: “write as I say, the people of the coasts will not understand, but will follow Barakles for the sake of the children. The people of the land matter not, for they cling with bitter tears to their tattered papyrii and their battered swords.” The scribes shrugged their shoulders and wrote.
Shyld Shielding, it is Law and Gospel, not Gospel without Law. -Both- kingdoms are Christ’s kingdoms, beholden to Him and His Word.
Carl,
I don’t understand your comment: “Thanks for the information, Theresa. Let us know when you locate a sonogram of Bristol’s baby.” What do you mean?
Anon - ROTFL!!
I’ll be looking forward to another episode on the battles of the Chieftain of the Heartendings and Sarah the Huntress agains Barakles and the Kossacks (not to mention Barakles’ comic relief sidekick).
I haven’t actually heard most of the attacks that Veith mentions, so I’m not sure what he means by “Democratic” attacks — are these made by Democratic politicians, or found, somewhere, on a blog? I don’t watch much TV, certainly not cable news, but I do read blogs on both sides, and I’ve never read about anyone mocking her accent, her many kids, her being from a small town, her hunting — if anything, I’ve found people here reveling in such things (I suppose identity politics is okay in the positive direction?).
(Of course, I have read plenty of attacks here on “elitist” (uppity?) Obama, in constrast to the actual upbringing he had — that sort of boot-strapping isn’t very admired, it would seem.)
Veith’s history of recent politics seems a bit revised, however. “Democrats used to be the party of the common man … before they were taken over by privileged children of the Sixties and wealthy fashionistas.” Yes, consider good ol’ boot-strappin’ FDR and JFK. “Republicans back then were party of the country club set.” Ah, as opposed to … now? Consider good ol’ boot-strappin’ GWB, Yalie son of a millionaire, Yalie, oilman and President, himself a son of a Wall Street banker and Senator. OR JSM, son to a four-star admiral and grandson to a four-star admiral. Americans love to vote for wealthy elites who talk a good common talk. “That’s a millionaire dynast I could really have a beer with!”
I dare say both sides make plenty of promises to the poor and middle class, knowing full well they’re much more accountable to those with deep pockets. Regardless, I’d be willing to bet more poor people vote Republican because of values than because they’ve truly seen the trickle-down benefit of upper-class tax cuts.
Anyhow, Michele Catalano is an interesting person to quote. In a previous article about teenage pregnancy, she said
(Whoops, didn’t close my block quote properly.)
FW (@3), you said something about McCain “while he was a POW”. Wait, McCain was a POW? Really? When? Why hasn’t he mentioned this?
Carl (@4), if you want to be taken seriously when you complain about media behavior, then stop defending it when the media on your side (Rush, O’Reilly, etc.) do the same thing. And FW didn’t “falsely portray” McCain’s words, he noted — accurately — that McCain didn’t actually say what he’d done wrong, just that his marriage failed.
Perhaps all of this stuff serves God’s purpose: to show us all (regardless of party affiliation) how self-righteous we are and how the only answer to it is Christ and His righteousness.
McCain admitted his first marriage was his greatest moral failure. tODD, you’re tap-dancing when you try to distinguish that admitting personally to a moral failure is different from saying he was wrong… unless you are accusing McCain of distinguishing between the two. Do you think he was?
fw, a confession is not to be made to the general public on TV, it’s to be made in private and reconciliation is to involve those who the sins affected, not everyone who is curious.
I am concerned about what his past actions indicate about his current mindset, but what I’ve seen/read (not just the Rick Warren interview) shows that he does view his own past actions as wrong AND regrets them. I don’t know everything he may have done to reconcile himself to his ex-wife, but it is something that is rightfully between the two of them and is theirs to make public. I’ve read an interview or two that has mentioned their reconciliation, but never the extent.
tODD, I think that saying something is a “moral failing” is saying it is wrong. I also read an interview back during the 2004 campaign that had him saying he had failed his duty as a husband and had been wrong in his actions with his divorce. So regardless of whether or not you think his Warren interview somehow avoided saying he was wrong, McCain has stated elsewhere that he had done wrong.
There are other things in which I hold McCain to be a poor candidate, but his past infidelity and divorce isn’t one of them.
Not all the criticism is coming from those bad Democrats. Here’s a little GOP disquietude with Palin.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/
Theresa, it means that I won’t have to spend time browsing through the supermarket tabloids for the latest details, pictures, interviews, and sonograms of Bristol and Levi. I can just check here for further links, such as to a Time/CNN reporter who writes “… it’s really nobody’s business beyond that. I happen to agree.”… and then proceeds to talk about the “poor daughter,” her pregnancy, whether the Feminists for Life’s position on birth control could have had an impact on Bristol getting pregnant, the “decency” of Wasilla not to talk about the pregancy over the weekend, the “hamhanded” way the McCain campaign didn’t talk about the pregnancy over the weekend, etc., etc.
I like Senator Obama. I enjoy hearing him speak. He’s really very good at it. I also admire what he has accomplished in becoming a senator especially at his relatively young age. I think I understand the attraction of his persona and in some sense his politics. All that being said, there’s no way that I would ever vote for Obama especially for the highest office in the land. These are my reasons so far: 1) his liberal stance toward abortion which I am sure is very strongly tied to the support he needs from some very liberal minded people who seem to control the voice of the democratic party on this issue. 2) his somewhat understandable stance (his being a democrat from Illinois) for gun control. and 3) (this is also a big issue for me against big government spending Republicans like Bush) are the political promises made around taxes, tax relief, and a more nationalized health care system.
Those are the three main reasons I have for not voting for Obama. But they also happen to be the most important reasons (to me at least) for why I like McCain’s new crazy back-woods pro-life feminist small-town governor running-mate. In fact, I would prefer her over McCain or anyone from the Bush family any day of the week. But then again, I grew up in Idaho.
WebMonk (@16), first, I just want to say that this definitely is not an important issue. I was mainly defending FW’s characterization of McCain’s response.
That said, McCain’s answer does have a bit of “mistakes happened” in it: “my greatest moral failing, and I have been a very imperfect person, is the failure of my first marriage.” His greatest failing is a “failure”, but who contributed to that failure? Only him? How? All we know is that something went wrong. We can assume he played a part in it. But, to me, this is akin to a President saying his greatest failing was global warming.
Compare that with Obama’s response: “There were times when I experimented with drugs, I drank, you know, in my teenage years. And what I trace this to is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn’t focus on other people. And you know, I think the process for me of growing up was to recognize that it’s not about me.”
So you want McCain to go into more detail in public? I’ll chalk this one up to personal preferences about public statements.
Remember the generations they are from - the Builder generation tends to be taciturn about ANY personal item, while the Baby Boomers are more loquacious in their personal revelations. (McCain doesn’t talk about his war experiences much, though his supporters never seem to shut up.) Their ‘confessions’ are virtually stereotypical of their generations, and I think it’s impossible to read anything into the differing lengths and details offered.
One can go by the content, but frankly, a sound-bite style interview on TV isn’t a place where an issue like that should/can be addressed properly. Give them both a five or ten page paper to write on the topic and we can get a much more accurate sense of how they view morality. I really don’t care about a specific instance that they dredge up that they think is the most serious instance of failure - I’m more interested in their underlying approach to why they feel it is their biggest failing and how they feel they’ve dealt with it over time. Any specific instance is probably tied to a larger issue struggle, and that larger issue (and how they deal with it) is of much more importance.
If I had to split hairs, I thought Obama’s statement had more of the “I had some little sins way back when,” sort of confession. I made very similar confessions when I was younger, and I still fall into that trap today.
Maybe I’m reading my own failings into Obama’s content, and my own preferences into McCain’s style of presentation. (I’m a Gen-X that tends to be very Builder-ish in practice and temperament.) I really can’t see that there’s enough content in either of those statements by themselves to pull anything of serious worth, so I pretty much ignore that section.
Like I said before, I’ve read some interviews where McCain talked about his first marriage in more depth (he was still taciturn, but at least used more than a dozen words) and he clearly admitted the blame as his own. I’ve pretty much dropped concerns about his current character based on his shameful handling of his first marriage.
I might feel more comfortable with Palin if her daughter’s fornication hadn’t become a cause for celebration. I’m happy Bristol is having the child, though I don’t think she must marry the father. But that’s certainly her call.
At the same time, it’s weird that there are now news photographs of the father, Levi, meeting with McCain. He got the girl pregnant, for goodness sake! That gets him an appointment with McCain?
Now that everyone knows about the Bristol/Levi sin, why can’t the results play themselves out behind the scenes?
WebMonk (@21), fair enough for the most part. I could totally see the generation gap as an explanation. If you’d care to point to any of the other McCain interviews you’ve referred to, that would be helpful, as I have not found them.
However, I have to disagree with the statement that “McCain doesn’t talk about his war experiences much” (though I agree that “his supporters never seem to shut up” about it). I think at one point this was true of McCain (but then, I think a lot of good things were once true of McCain), but in the past few months, he’s in no way been shy about dropping references to his being a POW into interviews, even when it wasn’t relevant.
When Rick Warren asked him “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve ever had to make?”, McCain started replying with, “It was long ago and far away in a prison camp in North Vietnam,” and then went on for a bit. Right after that, when Warren asked, “You publicly say you’re a follower of Christ. What does that mean to you?”, McCain replied with a short reply about his faith, and then asked, “Can I tell you another story real quick? … The Vietnamese kept us imprisoned in conditions of solitary confinement or two or three to a cell,” and then continued on with that story for a bit more.
When Jay Leno asked McCain, “For $1 million, how many houses do you have?”, McCain replied, “Could I just mention to you, Jay, that, at a moment of seriousness, I spent five-and-a-half years in a prison cell. I didn’t have a house. I didn’t have a kitchen table. I didn’t have a table. I didn’t have a chair. And I didn’t spend those five-and-a-half years because, not because I wanted to get a house when I got out.”
In an interview with KDKA radio McCain had this to say when asked about being in touch with the American worker on the economy: “Well you know I have town hall meetings all the time, everywhere across this country, and I hear from people … And in all due respect my friends, I know what it’s like to not have a house, I know what it’s like not to have a kitchen table. I know what it’s like not to have a table or a chair. For five and a half years, I sat in a cell with nothing but concrete floor and three boards to sleep on.”
He also used the “I spent some years without a kitchen table, without a chair” line in an interview with Katie Couric.
He even referred to his war experiences when explaining why ABBA’s “Dancing Queen” was a favorite of his, saying his music knowledge “stopped evolving when his plane intercepted a surface-to-air missile.”
I think he’s perfectly willing — to say nothing of his campaign — to go to the POW well over and over to deflect criticism.
Wow, Anon. Thanks for that Barakles saga. That’s worth circulating on the internet!
Anon, I think the point of that is that Levi, like it or not, is a part of the family, and the family is traveling around the U.S.A. campaigning for president. That’s why he’s meeting up with the family and hopping on the McCain Train.
As to why you’re watching it on TV? Ratings. Tabloid journalism. Heck, I don’t know. Probably the same reason I knew Paris Hilton was crying in the back of a police car going to jail or Brittany Spears was getting out of rehab. There’s a problem with 24 hour news channels. News does not happen 24 hours a day.
Jones (@25), if, in fact Levi and Bristol are “campaigning” for McCain, then covering them is completely legitimate, as they have placed themselves in the public eye. I can find no evidence, however, that they are actually campaigning. They’re just members (and members-to-be) of Palin’s family.
Which makes it odd that McCain seems to have set up a photo op for him to be seen (awkwardly) shaking Levi’s hands. True, it is also an example of the 24-hour media having way too much time on its hands, but if McCain and Palin wanted to keep Bristol and Levi out of the public eye, they could have taken steps to do so, rather than hold a meet ‘n’ greet on the tarmac.
Remember the good old days when we argued about baptism or communion? I’m hard pressed to say I’ve learned anything about the candidates in these past two days of brilliant discussion. I have, however, learned much about our shared human nature.
Anon, sin is so much more than fornication. It’s nearly every breath way take. Those two young parents-to-be, along with the rest of us, sin in many ways each day. Each of those sins is equivalent in God’s eye, in that it condemns us to death.
WebMonk, I would be very (sincerely) interested to know the problems you have with a McCain presidency. Please share here or email privately if you prefer.
For you House watchers, I had to endure scrolling messages through out last night’s two-hour episode warning of the riots taking place in downtown St. Paul. I don’t know which drama was more intense: House’s dreams and near-death or the scrolled warnings.
Frank, I only recently learned of McCain’s first marriage and yes, it is a sad tale of sin. However, I also read of how he regards it as his greatest failure. What more can he do? I also read that he still takes care of her expenses. How can I judge him for a long-past divorce? I just can’t.
Isn’t the great thing about the good ol’ U.S. of A. the wonderful fact that any old (or fairly young) jerk can be president? If Bush could do it, then certainly Palin can be a decent VP and break ties in the Senate (isn’t that all she really needs to be able to do - that is unless the other old jerk dies?). Don’tchya think she could even nurse in there and do that?
#27 Theresa K
Where did you read that he takes care of her expenses? I read that the reagans had to give her a job after the divorce and that Ed Meese and family actually moved her into their home for a few years after Mc Cain dumped her for a younger woman (still the facts,and yes he is forgiven for that.) This all sounds a little different that what you read to me.
What troubles me is that he did not just have marriage problems and got a divorce, he was pursuing and sleeping with another younger woman while he was STILL living with his former wife. Musta been pretty much of a trauma yes? Personalize that if you will. you waited 5 years for your husband to return, not knowing if he was dead or alive part of that time, you held the family together during that time, you suffered a near death car accident experience, and shortly thereafter all that, you find your husband was getting all intimate with another younger beautiful rich woman while he was still sleeping with you every night….. and barely waited for the ink to dry on the divorce papers before marrying her…
Not sure I would vote for that man to hold the trigger to our nuclear arsenal even IF I could manage to forgive him.
The man was around 50 years old when this all happened. So you think after all these years he is more mature? Imagine that he has been any more faithful to the current wife? usually women who marry someone who started with them in an adulterous relationship and left the older wife to be with them regret it. Men don´t change their stripes…..
ah. amd McCain said (I quote) “my wife just wasn´t the same when I returned…”
so the divorce wasn´t all his fault after all….
his older ex-wife´s part in the divorce was that she was no longer the beautiful ex-model that he had married after she had her car accident….
wow
“I regret that I left my wife for another woman after she waited for me all the time that I was POW. The little lady here at my side in fact, is the one I committed adultery with and left my wife for.
She is going to bring a lil class to the white house when I am elected president. What a great role model she will be for young women everywhere!”
would be cool to see McCain justapose his constant reference to his pow experience that way.
Cindy MC Cain in justification of their adulterous start (I quote): “well, he was separated from his wife for a LONG time…”
(reference to hubby´s POW experience I assume.. after all, he was still living with his wife when he started ..um…things… with Cindy…)
FW (@29+), is this the same Frank we’ve heard from here before? I never would have believed he would have said “IF I could manage to forgive” somebody. The Frank I have read talked so freely of the gospel and forgiveness because he had experienced them so freely himself.
I certainly understand having doubts about a person’s character based on past actions (and let me be clear: those actions were pretty despicable), but speculating about his being faithful to his current wife? That’s wholly unwarranted!
“Men don’t change their stripes.” Hmm. I prefer to believe that, by Jesus’s “stripes”, men are changed — from miserable slaves to sin to holy, dearly loved children of God.
fw, that is one place where Christianity sees things very differently from you.
Over 50 years, we believe a person will either grow better, or worse.
We believe that Men change their stripes. There is One Who took stripes in our place that we might change ours.
McCain is most certainly forgiven in christ. EVEN if he were not repentant at all!
This does not mean that people change. why should it?
(example: about 5% of people who quit using drugs manage to not return to drugs within 5 years. They are still forgiven. Some behaviors are sorta predictable. so? )
I would not speculate if McCain has been faithful to his current wife. I was wrong to do. Thanks for calling me on it. Cindy McCain´s public comments on her part in the adultery have been problematic at best. I sincerely wish them both well.
I have done alot of counseling in my time to women and men right in the process of committing adultery with someone else´s husband/wife. The married party almost always promises that they will leave their spouse and marry the one I am counseling.
My standard comment to them, is that “if that person is with you and cheating on their spouse, just what makes you think that you are so special that they will not turn and do exactly the same thing to you if you manage to steal them from their spouse??!!” You are saying you would give different advice here?
Jesus stripes don´t promise do deliver us from our cancers or aids or diabetes (contrary to what the penticostals assert) or the consequences of our bad behaviors.
Just what other sexual ” indescretion” could McCain have committed 20 years ago that would not call into question his character? If he had committed child molestation? been caught making a homosexual pass at someone 20 years ago in a public restroom? arrest for lewd conduct in public?
There seems to be sort of a double standard here…. sort of looks like… manly men leave their wives for younger women all the time. normal. forgivable with some good passage of time (not sure how the passage of time makes something more excusable. Help me out on that point someone…).
NONE of those other things would be forgiven by most folks here with ANY passage of time…. adultery and divorce are pretty common place now I am guessing as to the why that is. People in glass houses don´t throw stones….
The particular circumstances of THIS case are extraordinary I would say. brutal even.
On forgiveness. If I commit adultery on my wife, I would most certainly be forgiven by God. Remember, to truly forgive is also to forget and count the sin no more. Just how many of us truly achieve that ideal even a few times in our lives? truly forget a wrong committed against us? yet we ARE forgiven. for our lack of forgiveness as well.
so my comment “IF I were able to forgive him…” should be placed in that context. without Christ we are truly lost, even in our very best efforts to reflect His forgiveness to others…..
So ok Todd. sometimes people change their stripes. sometimes they don´t. I am always pleased (and often surprised) when they manage to change. Often they change even without finding Jesus. God´s hand is still in that for goodness sake. The rain falls on the just and unjust alike.
The really excellent news is that ALL are forgiven whether they manage to change or not.
In his memoir Worth the Fighting For (Random House, 2002), McCain wrote that in the years following his return from Vietnam he did “not show[] the same determination to rebuild my personal life” as he did his professional life. McCain wrote: “My marriage to Carol McCain was falling apart. Sound marriages can be hard to recover after great time and distance have separated a husband and wife. We are different people when we reunite. But my marriage’s collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine.”
Several more similar quotes from the 2002 presidential bid can be read at:http://mediamatters.org/items/200808180006
Frank! I found the article! It wasn’t even a complimentary article on McCain. I read in in the Daily Mail (UK). (Please tell me it’s not the UK version of the National Enquirer
“One old friend of the McCains said: ‘Carol always insists she is not bitter, but I think that’s a defense mechanism. She also feels deeply in his debt because in return for her agreement to a divorce, he promised to pay for her medical care for the rest of her life.’
Carol remained resolutely loyal as McCain’s political star rose. She says she agreed to talk to The Mail on Sunday only because she wanted to publicize her support for the man who abandoned her.
Indeed, the old Mercedes that she uses to run errands displays both a disabled badge and a sticker encouraging people to vote for her ex-husband. ‘He’s a good guy,’ she assured us. ‘We are still good friends. He is the best man for president.’
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
There’s no way that fw is the same Frank. I’m guessing someone is using the same nom de plume. For one, the spelling has improved and the writing style changed. I welcome new posters, but I’d hate to wrongly have people think Frank is like that.
fw,
Those who refuse to repent are not forgiven, for there is no other sacrifice for sins. Our God is a consuming fire. Hebrews 10: 26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
We Christians believe that people can and do change, that God the Holy Spirit works this in them. Phil:2:12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
And we believe that those who refuse to repent, and who refuse to give thanks to God, go from bad to worse: Romans 1.
WebMonk, the Daily Kos and other Democrat hate sites have been sending their people out as trolls to the Christian and American sites. (Yes, Teresa, if someone rejects the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I don’t consider them Americans in attitude or belief)
Anon (@38), you said, “Daily Kos and other Democrat hate sites have been sending their people out as trolls to the Christian and American sites.” Wow, paranoid much?
Come to think of it, there’s only been an Anon posting here for a relatively short time! How do we know you’re not sent here by George Soros? Hmm?
fw:
Not long ago you and I went off line and had a wonderful discussion of sin - the reality of sin for every one of us; the fact that we are wreched and abhorrent to God. You helped me to see how a person can know that deep down there is a part of them that they cannot change leaving them only to rest securely in the arms of Jesus their merciful loving Savior.
Many people have not come to grips with this horrible truth — that without a Savior they would be eternally lost. Many are comfortable in their self-righteous belief that because they have never committed a homosexual act or that they have never acted on their intent to murder makes them at least a little more righteous than others. Why is heterosexual sin less damnable than homosexual sin? Good questions! And I have learned to see even ongoing sins by those who even know that they are sinning as a no different from the human condition that we all are in. [This is not to excuse sin, but to realize with St. Paul “Wretched man that I am! Who will save me?!]
Why have you changed your view to the one which I myself previously held (falsely): that on this side of heaven we can put away our willful, persistent sinning? Yes! I will continue to sin in thought, word, AND deed until Christ takes me from this vail of tears to Himself… where I shall live with Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness?
Does a man’s past or his heredity disqualify him from being the Lord’s prophet or king? Let’s ask Moses and David! And what of a man’s lineage? Let’s ask Jesus who’s family background included many less than pure souls, even a prostitute (gasp!).
I have found that in those areas where I have sinned the worst it is to this day very difficult for me to put them into words — so the Spirit intercedes for us. But those closest to me, including Christ, know my sin and do not require me to suffer more by detailing them.
As for my sins? I had my reasons; inadequate and inexcusable as they were. Nevertheless, sin and sinfulness took hold of me and I set aside that which I KNEW was right for that which I KNEW was wrong. “Lord, I believe. Help me in my unbelief!”
I will not excuse the adulterer, but I will understand him and I will say, “That sinner is me!” I will encourage him and exhort him and also continue to admonish him, but I will not condemn him because I am no different.
But you have made his the unforgivable sin. Would you put the fate of the nation in the hands of Thomas Jefferson or John Kennedy? How is this man any different from them? He has expressed his repentance we should take him at his word as we ask others to do the same for us.
At 55, my own father’s divorce was finalized and before the ink was dry he was married again - 10 days later. This was greatly offensive to my dear mother and to me. It was repulsive and, I believe, full of lies. But, today it is 19 years later and when our eyes meet there is an unspoken understanding: he repents and I forgive; for so we have both been forgiven by Christ. I don’t excuse him, but in sinning and in being forgiven we are alike. We choose to think on that.
WebMonk (@37): YES! That MUST be it! It does not sound at all like the same man! Dr. Veith: do you have a way to tell when someone is “spoofing”? We know where the REAL fw posts from.
yeah guys. it IS really me.
a new keyboard has helped my spelling somewhat.
Paul I agree with EVERYTHING you said dear friend.
True forgiveness is a very difficult thing. To harbor the resentment of un-forgiveness is like taking poison and then waiting for the other person to die. It is not only wrong, it is (as are all wrong things) toxic and lethal ultimately.
I am grateful that your family has managed to forgive and move on. and also was cheered to read how McCain´s ex carol has managed to move on. It is really a miracle when that happens isn´t it.
Now…. there is something confused here I feel. If I am applying for the job of security guard or treasurer and have to put on my resume that 20 years ago at age 50 I committed a rather scandalous embezzlement…..
I would surely be forgiven by God and maybe even by the company I embezzled from, yet this history would be properly considered in my fitness for the job I am applying for. Maybe I should consider a career change. Sins do have practical consequences that exist even in forgiveness. This judgement has nothing to do with the fact that I am forgiven by my God.
I see here a confusion of the two kingdoms. McCain´s (both his and his wife Cindy´s) adultery was, safe to say, one of the more outrageous lapses in character and judgement I have ever heard of on both their parts. He and his new wife are forgiven and perhaps McCain and Cindy are both changed for the better , but I would not consider McCain qualified for the most powerful job in the world with that on his resume.
Now. Just how does this mean that I have violated the tenants of the Holy Faith we all hold in common here? Just HOW am I harboring the sin of unforgiveness here?
Please do tell me so that I can see my error.
(I still have doubts as to your “Frank”-ness, this is WAY outside his normal style, but new people are always welcome.)
Let’s continue your security guard scenario. The guard is forgiven by God. The guard is forgiven by his company. The company has even re-hired him since then. (his ex-wife strongly supports him and speaks very well of him) The guard gives strong testimony of how he recognizes his failure and how he has grown from it. The guard has a resume that shows he has faithfully performed for 30 years since then. All his references confirm that he has stayed honest and that he has shown an extra strength that has come from that past crime.
Then the new employer says “Nope. You’re not getting hired, not because you might embezzle again, but just because you embezzled way back when.”
If the employer really has doubts as to the guard’s trustworthiness to not embezzle again, that’s one thing, but that’s not the case. There is no doubt that he won’t embezzle again and evidence that he will, if anything, be extra alert to any other embezzlement. At that point, the employer isn’t refusing on real concerns, he is refusing solely on the basis that he refuses to forgive a past sin.
The whole book of James talks about faith showing in action. The same applies here. The employer can say he forgives, but his actions certainly speak otherwise.
That is almost the picture perfect definition of harboring unforgiveness.
#43
your example is not a parallel one. you still confuse the two kingdoms in my opinion.
In your world, there would be no need for police background checks for certain jobs.
registered sex offenders would be most welcome to work in child day care centers and as playground supervisors and in close proximity to children after some indeterminate and apropriate time has passed assuming they had expressed repentance and had lived model lives for 20 or so years after…. there would be NO program to force those men and women to live a certain distance from schools and playgrounds…. Admittedly this is a radical example, but where and logically how would you differentiate this situation from feeling McCain´s past adultery and bad judgement should not be considered by a forgiving christian in deciding his qualification to be president?
reference checking and resumes would probably not be necessary ( it is the past and it is all forgiven.) whatever dirt would be uncovered would be fixed quicky by the candidate expressing remorse.
so I assume you are in favor of restoring full voting rights to felons and the removal of any job restrictions after time has been served. I would agree with you here. I hope you are actively pushing for this.
I also would assume that you are in favor of FULL amnesty for undocumented immigrants. after all, their entering the country illegally is in the past, and if they have repented, they should be forgiven yeah?
finally, why should we even incarcerate criminals? if they repent should we not forgive them and turn the other cheek? what they have done IS the past.
your logic takes us all there.
sin has temporal consequences. even when the eternal consequences have been resolved on the cross.
I am seeing what looks like antinomianism here. King david was forgiven, but his son died……
Paul, there is all the difference between Heaven and Hell between chosing to continue to live in sin, and stumbling, sinning daily, and *repenting* daily, trusting God, and trying to obey Him (Small Catechism).
Is there more than one fw posting here? One an antinominan Culture of Death poster, and the other one who confuses who rules the two kingdoms yet claims to oppose antinomianism?
Anon the First (@45), tell me: does your Small Catechism cover the Ten Commandments? Is it missing any? Does it have the Eighth, in particular? Just wondering.
Todd, are you accusing me of theft? What are you going on about? I haven’t noticed that the SC held weight with you.
fw, now I know there’s no way you’re the original.
As to most of those things, you’re purposefully distorting and ignoring most of what I said. Of course a convicted child molester shouldn’t be allowed in a daycare just because time has passed since he molested and he says he is sorry. That’s so incredibly far from what I wrote that it isn’t even in sight anymore.
Since you like the child molester example, we can use that. Would I trust my child to be watched by a past molester. Not unless I was dead certain of his reformation, but if I was that certain then I would. The burden of proof would be massive, but doable.
The “Left Hand” cannot know the details and must work at the broad-stroke level, and so it rightly bans molesters and felons from all sorts of things.
You’re the one who seems to have confused the Right and Left kingdoms. There is no earthly rule of any sort that declares that anyone who has ever committed adultery can’t be President. What you’ve said is that YOU will not vote for him based on the fact that he sinned 20-some years ago.
Your basic point, that past actions may invalidate people for different positions is valid as far as it goes. There is always the decision to make about what sort of past sins invalidate for what positions. Maybe you feel that any adultery invalidates a person for the position of President. You’re more than welcome to that position, everyone is welcome to laugh at you for it. No one would qualify!
Hopefully you don’t actually hold that, so there must be some sort of mitigating factors for adultery. It was a one-time thing, or it was when the person was much younger, or the person has shown that he has overcome that style of sin, or a combination of those and others. Whatever it may be, something redeems the adulterer for service.
But, you have apparently decided that absolutely nothing can possibly overcome McCain’s sinful action, no matter what, and so you will not forgive it and will continue to hold it against him.
If I’m wrong, and there is something that would redeem McCain’s sinful action to restore him to suitability for President (at least in that area) please say what it is. Or, if you believe that any adultery at all automatically removes a person from suitability for Presidential service, let me know that too so I can promptly start ignoring you.
Anon (@47), in Luther’s Small Catechism, the commandments are numbered such that the eighth is “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” explained as “We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.”
Somehow — and maybe, you know, it’s just me — your calling Frank an “antinominan Culture of Death poster” didn’t seem to be in line with that. A bit over the top, perhaps. Maybe.
“I haven’t noticed that the SC held weight with you.” Well, we apparently don’t even agree which catechism we’re referring to, so perhaps that’s understandable. I dare say there’s a lot you haven’t noticed about me.
I don’t believe that I -have- born false witness.
And I didn’t say what you said I said to anyone here, and I don’t know who Frank is. Some are wondering aloud if fw is Frank, and are concluding that fw is not.
Anon (@50), are you saying you haven’t defamed anybody by calling them (@45) an “antinominan Culture of Death poster”? Or does calling someone that fall under “speak[ing] well of him, and put[ting] the best construction on everything”?
And honestly, please tell me if you’re referring to some catechism other than Luther’s Small Catechism. Your unfamiliarity with what I’m saying may be hindering our communication.
You don’t know who Frank is because you haven’t hung around here very long. (You’d think that people lobbing around the term “troll” wouldn’t be newcomers, but oh well.) I’m well aware that WebMonk, for whatever reason, thinks fw is not Frank. At this point, I have no reason to believe he isn’t, but I hope you’ll understand if I fail to consult your opinion on the matter.
#48 webmonk.
feel free to ignore me.
to be honest I am not really sure at what point the private lives of our presidents and elected officials should really be NONE of our business. We all seem to feel entitled to know alot more about peoples private business than we really should. I actually do pine for the times back when few knew that fdr was in a wheelchair (incredible to imagine that now….) and that Ike, and JFKs indescretions maritally were pretty much covered up and kept private. I think those times were alot more honorable.
If I am hearing you right, you are basically saying that the republicans were totally wrong for going after bill clinton for committing adultery and then lying about it and that the move to impeach was totally wrong as well? if not, share your thoughts please! How is McCain´s situation different?
Our founders, especially ben franklin, were not exactly examples of sexual morality. Somehow as a nation we have managed to overlook those things. I think that is actually good.
So my question to you webmonk is this:
what general principle do you hold to as to comment or investigation of the private lives of politicians? Where would you draw the line? I am leaning towards “if it doesn´t directly pertain to the job description, then it should be off limits….” but THEN the press would need to stick to policy issues. and readership would plummet!!!
I stiil am not convinced that your logic on forgiveness as it relates to the civil realm is actually right. it would also be cool if you would address my other examples such as undocumented immigrants…. ok so you have your views… what is the underlying principle you hold to that I could use to apply to all the situations I offered up. So… you would be very cautious and hesitant to entrust your children to someone with a history, but you WOULD trust someone with a history to hold the nuclear red button… interesting….
I am trying to educate myself more than win an argument here webmonk. if you can´t take my observations as sincere and non sarcastic, we probably won´t be of much help to one another by dialoging huh?
fw is truly frank sonnek. the one who is pretty passionate about keeping the focus on the life death and ressurection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins on all topics religious and on more than a few “non-religious” topics as well.
The principle we are discussion goes to the very heart of Law and Gospel. To draw the conclusion that God´s forgiveness in Jesus means that we should simply forgive and forget civil transgressions is really an anabaptist construct.
It is not only right but also necessary at times to sue people in court for example. the executioner commits no sin in performing his duties. None of this would be true if what you are asserting is true webmonk.
It is not wrong for an employer to refuse to place someone in a position of trust in view of that person´s history, regardless of that persons repentence or personal reforms. This does NOT constitute a sin or unforgiveness.
So why is this all so very important to the Holy Gospel? Let´s say I commit a crime or do something that forever ruins my reputation in my community. And I suffer consequences. Rather serious ones… bankruptcy, my wife abandons me, jail time, illness…..
It is important to KNOW and BELIEVE that I am fully and completely forgiven in that situation. It is important to know that my suffering is in no way punishment for my sin from God. It is important to accept that suffering in the shadow of the cross. It is important to not resent the fact that my past sins have consequences.
This is all important to allow one to cling to faith that I am FULLY reconciled to God in Jesus regardless of all that. That my temporal suffering is in no way the will of God. it would be so very easy to believe that God has condemned and abandoned, and to avoid church. In fact, the church may very well also abandon in that situation. It is important to still insist on going to church in that case.
I expressed confusion over seemingly contradictory statements by the same nom de plume, and wondered if it was the same person, as someone else had been using anon recently as well. From this you quote ouf of context, Todd, and keep bringing it up. Is that helpful? Perhaps we can seek clarity instead?
I’ve not known Frank Sonnek (aka fw) use triple exclamation marks, ellipsis’, or the word “cool.” Frank Sonnek attended a Lutheran High School (”seminary”) and I mistook his comments as from those of a Lutheran Pastor. Therefore, I highly doubt that he would mistake the 8th Commandment in Luther’s Small Catechism for “Thou Shalt Not Steal.” A good sleuth could probably even search these archives and find him attributing it correctly. For me, that’s a “gottcha!”
The following comes from fw in the December “Predictions” post. On 12.29.07 at 11:28 pm FW wrote:
“I predict that Christ will come again in glory. In which case dear Doctor V, you will not be returning to this post because you will have far happier things to do!
And if he does not return in 08, I predict that His church will endure.
In that second case, I will support prayerfully whoever gets elected, even Romney (yuck!) , and I predict that I will be very disappointed if the Democrats are stupíd enough to push for Clinton and not Obama as their nominee….
ok, too easy :)”
Anon (@54), I’m not quoting you out of context. You said (@45), in full context, “Is there more than one fw posting here? One an antinominan Culture of Death poster, and the other one who confuses who rules the two kingdoms yet claims to oppose antinomianism?”
Now, allow me to “seek clarity”: who, exactly were you referring to with the phrase “antinomian Culture of Death poster”?
It reads to me like you’re saying that some of the remarks made by fw appear to be those of an “antinomian Culture of Death poster”, while other remarks appear to be those of “one who confuses who rules the two kingdoms yet claims to oppose antinomianism”. But that would still have you calling the author of the first set of remarks an “antinomian Culture of Death poster”.
Was it a typo?
Paul (@55), I think you’re confused. It was “Anon The First” (@47) who mistook “the 8th Commandment in Luther’s Small Catechism for ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal,’” not “fw”. I’m pretty certain I’ve seen Frank correctly reference that commandment plenty of times.
#58 todd
indeed. the 8th is the one I personally seem to break the most. The large catechism always nails me when it asks me who appointed me to be judge (my ability to vote does NOT qualify me here….) and if I could prove my accusations in a court of law. and when it tells me that I should be quiet and not repeat bad things about others but i should instead DEFEND them, SPEAK WELL OF THEM, and put the best construction on whatever….
And God wants me to do that for public figures as well? Now …
would someone tell me just HOW I am supposed to be a shrill partisan liberal Democrat and follow the 8th commandment meticulously in THOUGHT , word and DEED?
to take no glee at all but rather be very sad when I see republican elected officials attacked as to their character or mischaracterized and then to take the additional step of DEFENDING and speaking well of them???!!!
you have GOT to be kidding me…..
Dr Vieth´s site here comes about as close to civil discussion as i have ever heard from “red-meat-republicans”
I would suggest however, that we all still (including me!) have such a very long way to go!!!!!!
ANYONE disagree with me here?
fw, you’re positively MPD in your posts here. Is everything all right with you?
I’m not being sarcastic, I’m seriously concerned - are you doing OK? I went back and read through all the fw posts, and you’re bouncing all over the place on multiple levels, not just a single change of tone/style/view. Anything I/we can help with or pray for?
FW (@59), agreed. It’s hard. And none of us here does a very good job at it. It’s too easy to wait for those who disagree with me to be the first to speak well of the people with whom I share ideas — and when they don’t, to respond to them in kind — rather than to speak well of those with whom I disagree and they agree.
WebMonk (@60), perhaps at this point, you’d like to take up the issue of FW’s identity with him via email? If you’ve read all his posts, you know how to contact him.
is not the Democrat Party the party of the culture of death? The party promoting abortion at all ages and infanticide after birth? Promoting forced euthanasia? Promoting the black mass of homosexual ‘marriage’ and threatening those who disagree with loss of civil rights? How is it not an antinomian Culture of Death party? How is supporting that party and its candidates not supporting that party and its candidates? Answer me that, Todd.
As to the eighth commandment, I was counting in the Bible, not the SC. I wasn’t raised Lutheran, memorizing the Lutheran counting as a child.
tODD - doh! Every once in a while I get those “boy have I ever been dumb!” sort of feelings. Thanks!
Anon (@62), if you’re going to continue to play this “Democrat Party” game, then I will respond just as pettily that there is no such thing as the “Democrat Party”, so I have no idea what you’re talking about. Nor does most of what you’ve written apply to any other party I know of. I realize hyperbole is fun, but it’s not usually very accurate, by nature.
And I am sorry that you are unaware of the (lowercase R) republican nature of our democracy, but let me explain. We do not vote directly on every issue that comes before us, but rather for people who will, it is hoped, represent us in the various government bodies. Typically, these people belong to political parties with varying degrees of prescribed beliefs, and, as such, our choices are limited to certain preset combinations, typically. Because of this, a vote for a candidate cannot be taken to be an endorsement of everything that candidate does, nor everything his party stands for (assuming he even agrees with that) — it is an estimate of how fit that person is to be in that office at that time.
I have never voted for a candidate whose positions or actions I would endorse wholeheartedly. I would likely be rather sad if you claimed you had. I have made my position on abortion quite clear in comments on this blog, should you actually care to read it, rather than toss around “not judging” statements on my — and others’ — faith.
The Backlash to the MSM biases and distortions about Gov. Palin isn’t just being noticed on Cranach blog. The people in the midwest (aka “flyover country” to east and left coast elitists) are talking back. Today the Washington Times carried the news story, “Small-town residents boo media with McCain” from Cedarburg, WI, a town of about 11,000, about 20 miles north of Milwaukee. One excerpt from the article:
On the first leg of the “McCain Street USA” tour — which will take the Republican presidential nominee and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to small towns across the heartland — the 30 or so reporters and crew were walking back to their buses to join the McCain motorcade when hundreds of townspeople started yelling.
“Stop lying! You are all liars! Tell the truth!” one woman yelled from the front of the pack.
The crowd was not menacing or threatening, but was clearly angry.
“You’re telling lies! Stop the lies!” one man yelled. Asked why the crowd was so angry, Linda J. Green of Mequon, Wisc., said: “I’m thinking the press is very biased.”
Yep, I’m thinking the sky is blue, too. It wouldn’t be surprising if Linda reads Newsbusters.
Heh, Linda is from Mequon. Now where have I heard of that before?
It’s sad to see old friends fight. By which I refer to McCain and the media, who he once referred to as his “base”. I guess this is part of McCain’s evolution from a centrist “maverick” (media’s incessant term, not mine) to a toe-the-line Republican: One of things you just have to do is villainize the media. In fairness, it’s probably mainly about shoring up the Republican base.
McCain used to love the media so much (and this, no doubt, was why so many Republicans used to — used to! — hate him). He’d serve them ribs at his Sedona ranch (they’d even help him cook) while they merrily swang on his tire swing. They brought him flowers.
They invited him on Sunday morning talk shows — over 100 times in the past decade, more than anyone else, I believe.
They called him names: “a cool dude” (Jake Tapper, Salon); “an original, imaginative and at times inspiring candidate” (Jacob Weisberg, Slate); “the bravest candidate in the presidential race” (Dana Milbank, Washington Post); “an affable man of zealous, unbending beliefs” and “the hero [who] still does things his own way” (Richard Cohen, Washington Post). Oh, that irascible liberal media!
But that was then. He’s decided he’d rather marry the Republicans than date the media.
One question, Carl (@65): were you in Cedarburg in the past week?
(Also, as to “flyover country”, the only two references I could to it on Cranach’s blog are by Carl, here, and a quote from a Pajamas Media article — but they’re media, so you’d expect a liberal bias from them. I wonder if conservatives actually use that phrase more than liberals.)
A Newsbusters article, “The Swift-Skirting of Sarah Palin” discusses the media’s attempt to do with lies what the Swift-boats did to John Kerry with the truth. A list of some of the various lies and distortions (including links), followed by the truth is provided.
In the comments there’s a link to another longer list of “Palin Rumors” that are refuted or the distortion explained. Example: “No, Willow and Piper aren’t named for witches on TV.”
With the MSM invasion of Wasilla (comparable to the Normandy landing) on a search and destroy mission, expect new lies and distortions about Palin to be promulgated… along with possible rumors that Palin once burned some toast. Media clymers simply cannot allow the GOP ticket to win in November. No doubt the Newsbusters’ list will need frequent updating.
Carl, Carl, Carl (@68), I’ll believe that you honestly care about the spread of malicious rumors when you stop engaging in it yourself, here, on this blog.
Also, Carl (@68), comparing the good people of Wasilla to Nazis (much less the “MSM” to their Allied liberators) seems a strange thing for you to do.
Leave a Comment