Palin's Pastor???

[Bruce Carriker]

I guess if Jeremiah Wright was fair game politically, then so, too, is Sarah Palin's pastor. While not as radical as Wright, he has some ideas that are pretty far from the mainstream:

On John Kerry: "I'm not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I'm sorry." (Actually, this is probably not far afield for those who believe that you cannot be both a Democrat and a Christian.)

On political dissent: "I hate criticisms towards the President, because it's like criticisms towards the pastor -- it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you." (Hmmm... wonder what the Founding Fathers would have done if they'd known that dissent was a mortal sin. I wonder if it was a mortal sin when the GOP and many, many Christians were so critical of Bill Clinton.)

After learning that Jews for Jesus founder David Brickner spoke at her church in August about the need to evangelize Jews, and the problems in the West Bank being judgments from God, the McCain campaign responded: "Governor Palin does not share the views he expressed, and she and her family would not have been sitting in the pews of this church for the last seven years if his remarks were even remotely typical." (No one accepted that response from Obama. Why should we accept it from McCain's campaign spokesman...not even from Palin herself? And he spoke there four years ago and was invited back. So, how do you argue that it's not 'remotely typical?')

I wonder why these items receive no notice at all from the press, while Jeremiah Wright was all over the news for weeks? I guess it must be that liberal bias everyone talks about.

[Ryan Scott]

Or people could understand that it was inappropriate the first time and decided not to pay one offense back with another.

[Dale Cozby]

Well Bruce if that is the best you can come up with to attack Palin's minister, you are really desperate.

Concerning the Jews for Jesus founder as a guest speaker. Even the liberal media can see the difference between a guest speaker who speaks once and sitting under the tutelage of a pastor like Wright for 20 years.

Have you ever attended a seminar or some other event where you disagreed with a guest speaker? Hmmm... not exactly apples to apples.

[Bruce Carriker]

Or people could understand that it was inappropriate the first time and decided not to pay one offense back with another.

On that count, the Obama campaign has taken the high road, which is commendable. But I wonder why the press has responded differently. Are they really so afraid of Palin because she is a woman and has demonstrated a total willingness to play the sexist, victim card?

[Bruce Carriker]

Well Bruce if that is the best you can come up with to attack Palin's minister, you are really desperate.

Concerning the Jews for Jesus founder as a guest speaker. Even the liberal media can see the difference between a guest speaker who speaks once and sitting under the tutelage of a pastor like Wright for 20 years.

Have you ever attended a seminar or some other event where you disagreed with a guest speaker? Hmmm... not exactly apples to apples.

It certainly is apples to apples. Challenging someone's Christianity over how they vote is patently offensive. Preaching damnation to those who oppose a president's political policies is patently offensive. And if the Catholic priest who was a guest preacher in Obama's church was fair game, then why not the Jews for Jesus speaker who was a guest in Palin's church?

I'm not desperate at all. I thought it was much ado about nothing when it was done to Obama. I'm just curious as to why the press sensationalizes one pastor for being out of the mainstream, while totally ignoring a pastor who is also out of the mainstream.

[Brady R. Lane]

It certainly is apples to apples. Challenging someone's Christianity over how they vote is patently offensive. Preaching damnation to those who oppose a president's political policies is patently offensive. And if the Catholic priest who was a guest preacher in Obama's church was fair game, then why not the Jews for Jesus speaker who was a guest in Palin's church?

I'm not desperate at all. I thought it was much ado about nothing when it was done to Obama. I'm just curious as to why the press sensationalizes one pastor for being out of the mainstream, while totally ignoring a pastor who is also out of the mainstream.

I would just say, "Be Patient." Obama's been in tne media spotlight as a candidate or a potential candidate for what; better than 2 years now? How far into that time did we first begin to hear anything about Jeremiah Wright, or anything really much at all that was a serious examination of Obama.

Palin has been in the spotlight 2-3 weeks. Just give it a little time. Character assault and assination seems to be a specialty on both sides of the aisle. It's not just a mindless, right-wing, Republican tactic.:)

[Bruce Carriker]

Just give it a little time. Character assault and assination seems to be a specialty on both sides of the aisle. It's not just a mindless, right-wing, Republican tactic.:)

Although Karl Rove did raise it to an art form. :laughing

[Brady R. Lane]

Although Karl Rove did raise it to an art form. :laughing

There are some of us who would believe that it was the "Clinton Machine" Karl Rove might have used for a tutorial. Of course that is just a mindless, right-wing, conservative opinion.:basic02

[Charles W Christian]

Yeah, the whole "guilt by association" business has a checkered past in both parties. In the long run, all it does it hurt the process, I believe. Of course, it will continue. Hannity is always pulling out names for his "guilt by association" attempts toward Obama. The Democrats have a list, too: McCain's campaign manager, Palin's pastor, etc., etc.

Of course, there are times when one's business dealings, religious dealings, and close associates matter, but not near as much as the press on both sides are making it. Jesus, after all, at with "tax collectors and sinners," and the political and religious opponents of his day made use of this. I wonder what the press would do today!

My big points: 1) Both sides need to realize that whatever judgement they use will be used toward them; 2) We should focus on issues and realize that these flawed people will be flawed, and we should pick the person who is right to oversee our govt. processes at this moment in history....

Charles

[Hans Deventer]

There are some of us who would believe that it was the "Clinton Machine" Karl Rove might have used for a tutorial.

The one statement doesn't contradict the other.

[Hans Deventer]

2) We should focus on issues and realize that these flawed people will be flawed, and we should pick the person who is right to oversee our govt. processes at this moment in history....

Charles, according to McCain's staff, he's simply not going to make it if they focus on the issues. So you're asking them to give up, in their view.

[Charles W Christian]

Charles, according to McCain's staff, he's simply not going to make it if they focus on the issues. So you're asking them to give up, in their view.

Well, I was just saying what they should do; not what they would do! :basic03


CWC

[David Parker]

There is so much error in the vitriol aimed at Sarah Palin.

It was not Sarah's pastor that made the statement about voting for Kerry. Wasn't even her church. It was at her prior church two years after she left.

"Pastor Ed" made the statement in a "humorous, tongue in cheek manner" at Wasilla Assembly of God in 2004. Sarah and her family have attended Wasilla Bible Church (http://wasillabible.org/) since 2002. Here is Wasilla AoG's statement at their website. (http://wasillaag.org/index.php?s=au&nid=3731&news_id=8216) (complete with transcript)

This smells like desperation. :fav01

[Bruce Carriker]

Vitriol? :laughing

Please. :rolleyes:

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Or people could understand that it was inappropriate the first time and decided not to pay one offense back with another.

I always hope that whenever one side lowers itself, the other side won't automatically stoop (but they usually do).

Wilson

[Bruce Carriker]

I always hope that whenever one side lowers itself, the other side won't automatically stoop (but they usually do).

Wilson

Sorry, I didn't mean to "stoop". I was just curious why Obama's pastor came under such scrutiny...not from McCain, but from the press...and why that same press, which is always accused of being liberal lapdogs, is saying nothing about Palin's pastors, who seem to have views which many would consider out of the mainstream.

My comments were really aimed at the press, not the McCain campaign.

[Ryan Scott]

It was not Sarah's pastor that made the statement about voting for Kerry. Wasn't even her church. It was at her prior church two years after she left.


Not that I want to continue this discussion, but I just chuckled that if the candidate specific information were replaced with that of Obama's situation - the defense would be virtually identical.

I'm choosing to be optimistic in this and saying that whoever might make this an issue is choosing to do the right thing and let it die. Fighting fire with fire isn't a good option ever.

[John Kennedy]

You've gotta' admit that if each side keeps reciprocally stooping, they're at least maintaining parity. (How's that for lookin' for a ray of sunshine?)

[Mark Strong]

After learning that Jews for Jesus founder David Brickner spoke at her church in August about the need to evangelize Jews ...

I am not quite sure what the issue is with this part of the quote. I would agree that the first two things you had quoted are not good things to say, however, is there anything wrong with this statement? I understand how the secular press would have a problem with this, but as for Christians, isn't that a sentiment we could agree with?

I don't think it is anti-semitic to say that Jewish people who do not believe in Jesus need to be evangelized. I would say that members of the Mark Strong family who do not believe in Jesus need to be evangelized.

Or, is the problem with the quote not that Jews need to be evangelized but rather just the part about the West Bank?

[Jon Bemis]

I guess if Jeremiah Wright was fair game politically, then so, too, is Sarah Palin's pastor. While not as radical as Wright, he has some ideas that are pretty far from the mainstream:

On John Kerry: "I'm not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I'm sorry." (Actually, this is probably not far afield for those who believe that you cannot be both a Democrat and a Christian.)

On political dissent: "I hate criticisms towards the President, because it's like criticisms towards the pastor -- it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you." [I](Hmmm... wonder what the Founding Fathers would have done if they'd known that dissent was a mortal sin. I wonder if it was a mortal sin when the GOP and many, many Christians were so critical of Bill Clinton.)

Bruce, are you saying that her current pastor said these things? Do you have a source so that I can read them? Thanks.

[Ryan Scott]

Sorry, I didn't mean to "stoop". I was just curious why Obama's pastor came under such scrutiny...not from McCain, but from the press...and why that same press, which is always accused of being liberal lapdogs, is saying nothing about Palin's pastors, who seem to have views which many would consider out of the mainstream.

My comments were really aimed at the press, not the McCain campaign.


Perhaps the press is not as monolithic as we like to think?

[David Parker]

Bruce, are you saying that her current pastor said these things? Do you have a source so that I can read them? Thanks.

Check out this post. (http://www.naznet.com/community/showpost.php?p=221234&postcount=13)

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Perhaps the press is not as monolithic as we like to think?

It is intriguing that both sides feel the press leans the other way...

Wilson

[Ryan Scott]

It is intriguing that both sides feel the press leans the other way...


The only press I recognize in this country is the BBC and NPR. They're the only one who seem to care about journalism. Both seem to be devoid of detractors during this election. Could that be just a coincidence?


(And yes, the BBC is giving full coverage to this campaign; they've got an army of reporters across the US)

[Wilson L. Deaton]

..., the BBC is giving full coverage to this campaign; they've got an army of reporters across the US ...

What?!? They don't even have a dog in this hunt! :basic05

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

This smells like desperation. :fav01

David, every dirty add from the Republicans and the very choice for Palin doesn't even smell like desperation, it reaches high heavens.

[David Parker]

David, every dirty add from the Republicans and the very choice for Palin doesn't even smell like desperation, it reaches high heavens.

Well, I was referring to the falsehoods in prior posts, but now that you mention it...

As I've said before, I would rather both sides stick to issues. However, negative ads do work which helps explain why BOTH sides are using them. The only ad from McCain that I take issue with was his "lipstick on a pig" web ad, but I wouldn't call it "dirty". How about Obama ridiculing McCain for his lack of computer skills which is not only factually wrong, but ignores his physical handicap due to his torture?

The passion of the Dems to pick Palin apart and destroy her is testimony to her power and effectiveness. There is panic in the air. And I must say I am entertained by the responses to her selection. It's like people are mad because McCain isn't channeling Bob Dole and preparing to lose gracefully. McCain didn't surprise anybody that knows him well when he picked Palin. He really is a maverick and he loves to tweak the know-it-alls. Just like he did in the past with the Religious Right. If he is elected, I expect to see him tweak them again too....

Am reading (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzgzZGE2NDgxNDY5Y2UwMjBkOTk4ZjJlZjEwZTRmMGI=) that Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are all in play now. Who would have thought MN would even be an outside chance for McCain?

Now we read that Biden has been deserted (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/joe-who.html) by the national press. There is indeed desperation in the air, but it looks more blue than red.

[Hans Deventer]

The only ad from McCain that I take issue with was his "lipstick on a pig" web ad, but I wouldn't call it "dirty".

David, if even Karl Rove said the adds go too far, it seems to me the issue is beyond discussion. http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=22474

And I must say I am entertained by the responses to her selection. It's like people are mad because McCain isn't channeling Bob Dole and preparing to lose gracefully.

I'm glad you are entertained. The other day I wrote I regret he succumbed to the powerplay and lost his integrity and simply determined to win at any price. If that brings you joy, I'm happy for you.

But I'm not entertained at all. Few things are worth more than winning an election. Integrity is one.

[Jon Bemis]

David, if even Karl Rove said the adds go too far, it seems to me the issue is beyond discussion. http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=22474

Hans,

That link is hardly a convincing source in regards to what Karl Rove said. In fact, it is rather misleading. As is usually the case, context is everything. I watched the full interview with Rove and he did say "Both campaigns are making a mistake, they are taking whatever their attacks are and going one step too far." Then when asked specifically about McCain, Rove said, "McCain has gone in his adds similarly one step too far . . ." In other words, he has done what Obama has done. This was one sentence in the midst of several minutes of discussion in which Rove was trying to make the point that both campaigns need to move away from the negativity.

This interview was on Fox News, and lots of the clips floating around the internet are conveniently edited to put it in the worse possible light. But even by watching the Huffington Post's clip (which is pro Obama) you can get a sense of the context. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/14/karl-rove-mccains-ads-hav_n_126280.html

[Hans Deventer]

That link is hardly a convincing source in regards to what Karl Rove said. In fact, it is rather misleading. As is usually the case, context is everything. I watched the full interview with Rove and he did say "Both campaigns are making a mistake, they are taking whatever their attacks are and going one step too far." Then when asked specifically about McCain, Rove said, "McCain has gone in his adds similarly one step too far . . ." In other words, he has done what Obama has done. This was one sentence in the midst of several minutes of discussion in which Rove was trying to make the point that both campaigns need to move away from the negativity.

Jon, Karl Rove is a Republican. And a Republican with a name for this kind of stuff. If he says anything about the campaign of the Democrats, that's no news. But if he, the master of tough/dirty (you may choose) campaigning says that his own party goes too far, that is news! That's what I said and it still stands, in context as well.

Secondly, it is of course even worse that a man of integrity like McCain used to be, gets this low.

[Bruce Carriker]

The only press I recognize in this country is the BBC and NPR. They're the only one who seem to care about journalism. Both seem to be devoid of detractors during this election. Could that be just a coincidence?


(And yes, the BBC is giving full coverage to this campaign; they've got an army of reporters across the US)

You forgot Fox News, Ryan. They're "Fair and Balanced." Just ask anyone. :laughing:laughing


I tend to find that CSPAN radio does a pretty good job of actually sticking to issues, with no obvious bias.

[Jon Bemis]

Jon, Karl Rove is a Republican. And a Republican with a name for this kind of stuff. If he says anything about the campaign of the Democrats, that's no news. But if he, the master of tough/dirty (you may choose) campaigning says that his own party goes too far, that is news! That's what I said and it still stands, in context as well.

Maybe it is news to some, not to me. During the course of the interview it didn't even give me pause. I agreed with what Rove said, that both parties are using the same tactics and those tactics will not serve them well. I also know that this is coming form someone who mastered the same tactics. The overall point I was trying to make is that there was considerable spin put on Rove's comments.

[Hans Deventer]

Maybe it is news to some, not to me.

No problem. You may know him much better than I do. I was surprised to hear this from him regarding his own party, but then again, I can't claim to know Rove all that well. So for me, it was news. Something like Dick Cheney saying that he's always been opposed to Guantanamo Bay. It's something I would not have expected.

[Jon Bemis]

No problem. You may know him much better than I do. I was surprised to hear this from him regarding his own party, but then again, I can't claim to know Rove all that well. So for me, it was news. Something like Dick Cheney saying that he's always been opposed to Guantanamo Bay. It's something I would not have expected.

Hans,

In truth, I can see why it would be news and could be used by the other party. I guess I'm already tired of this election and all the charges and counter charges. I would simply like to see either McCain or Obama address real issues, with realistic solutions. At least maybe then I would know why I should vote for one or the other.

[Rich Hudson]

The only "panic" or "desperation" that seems to be in the air today has been triggered by the ever narrowing gap in the RCP and evaporation of the "bounce" from the RNC.

Howls of outrage at the continued "vetting" of Governor Palin sound a bit like "desperation" as well. Continued shots at Senator Obama's faith and competence as a parent also ring as "panic". Charges of "error" fall short of convincing as well.

We can all spend our days scanning RCP for evidence that our candidate is pulling ahead and come out with different results.

For an Obama supporter this is a good day, with tendencies improving by the minute. If the RCP continues to move the way it has the last couple days we'll be dead even soon.

[David Parker]

I'm glad you are entertained. The other day I wrote I regret he succumbed to the powerplay and lost his integrity and simply determined to win at any price. If that brings you joy, I'm happy for you.

But I'm not entertained at all. Few things are worth more than winning an election. Integrity is one.

These statements just amaze me. You have said you favor Obama, so I understand your perspective, but how can you only see McCain succumbing to a "powerplay" or losing his "integrity"?

Obama, the "change" candidate picks an ol' warhorse as VP that has been in the Senate longer than McCain, obviously to address his own lack of experience and "gravitas". A man almost as doctrinaire liberal as himself. A man that has been wrong often, failed repeatedly as a presidential candidate, and can't seem to speak without racial gaffes. Remember "first clean black" candidate or "can't go into 7-11 unless you have Indian accent"?

And that isn't succumbing to a powerplay or losing his integrity? Obama blew his pick, received no poll bounce for his choice, and has now been more focused on Palin than McCain. I understand the Dem frustration, but continuing to slam Palin just backfires and turns more independents and women to McCain. McCain/Palin has received a 20 point swing (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080909/pl_nm/usa_politics_women_dc) from white women and Obama can't win without them.

As I've said before, if this race is about issues, McCain wins. This country is not and never has been as left/liberal as Obama, so I think it imperative that issues be the focus. As Rove pointed out, both sides are going negative, which I think is sad. They should both be focused on issues, not "zinger" ads.

Why it is only McCain that has lost "integrity" is just the same old double standards. Just because he made what appears to be a brilliant VP pick, and the Dems/media are squirming, doesn't mean he has lost integrity in doing so.

[Rich Hudson]

I can understand Republican frustration today with the Reuters poll now joining others that declare the race "dead even". Senator Obama wisely made his VP choice about competence rather than "bounce" and it is paying off in the long run. The short run with Palin was temporarily exciting and I'm sure many of us felt a sort of "rush" from the surprise.

But Obama against Palin is a Republican creation. Senator Obama has continued to question Senator McCain's policies while virtually ignoring Palin, much to the angst of the opposition. Senator Obama has continued to treat Governor Palin with respect and deference, despite the Republican insistence that the campaign must now be about her against him. The strategy simply didn't work.

Those of us continuing to question Governor Palin's fitness and character will likely be labeled as "haters". I'm comfortable being labeled that way as I've found it so since 2004 when questioning anything the President did resulted in a similar label. That to is a Republican creation.

[Hans Deventer]

As I've said before, if this race is about issues, McCain wins.

If that were true, the McCain campaign would focus on them. The fact that they don't, and their VP pick is certainly not based on issues but on gender and tactics, speaks volumes. Seems undeniable to me. So it seems both the McCain campaign and me disagree with your conclusion.

This country is not and never has been as left/liberal as Obama

I'm not so sure but even if so, they've certainly had it with Bush. They're in for a change and loo and behold, what is the theme even the GOP picks up? If there is any implicit acknowledgement that you screwed up big time, it's when your own party preaches change. And how to get elected in that case? DON'T FOCUS ON ISSUES! And that's exactly what they say they are doing.

so I think it imperative that issues be the focus. As Rove pointed out, both sides are going negative, which I think is sad. They should both be focused on issues, not "zinger" ads.

Why it is only McCain that has lost "integrity" is just the same old double standards. Just because he made what appears to be a brilliant VP pick,

I'd say it was a totally desperate one.

doesn't mean he has lost integrity in doing so.

I didn't talk about his VP pick and integrity. It's about the adds. David, he always was Mr Integrity himself. His staff understands that it wouldn't help him when it comes to the real battle. So they even go beyond Rove's tactics. Now if his key point has always been integrity, he has a problem. How are you going to clean up DC, if you're as dirty yourself?

Obama started the campaign on hope & change. Not on negative adds. What made him start to fight? It sure wasn't him who started the mudslinging. I can understand his decision.

I'm actually glad the Dems don't let themselves be taken to the slaughter without a fight as they did in 2004. They've learned you got to kick back. And it doesn't matter what ridiculous accusations you make, some will still stick. I don't want to give even a cent to each of those who still believe Obama is a Muslim after all, I'd be broke.

And McCain's town hall excuses is simply ridiculous. It's also an implicit acknowledgement that he's playing dirty and he knows it. I understand who advised him to do so and even think they're probably right.
We'll have to see if the electorate will accept a different McCain than they are used to. What still speaks for him is that he's clearly uncomfortable with what his people are doing. That is hopeful if he gets elected after all, which I think he will.

BTW, it seems nowadays the real issues have a way of demanding attention. Who knows they might still become a campaign topic after all. That would be some change after lipstick on pigs as the main topic.

[David Parker]

I didn't talk about his VP pick and integrity. It's about the adds.

Just goes to show how our perceptions may not be accurate....

From the TNS Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group (TNSMI/CMAG) and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project: (released today)

"77% of the Obama campaigns' ads were deemed "negative," compared to 56% for McCain."

Marc Ambinder; TheAtlantic.com (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/obamas_run_more_negative_ads.php)

[Mark Metcalfe]

Just goes to show how our perceptions may not be accurate....

From the TNS Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group (TNSMI/CMAG) and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project: (released today)

"77% of the Obama campaigns' ads were deemed "negative," compared to 56% for McCain."

Marc Ambinder; TheAtlantic.com (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/obamas_run_more_negative_ads.php)

Just a comment: (maybe this point was made already).

"Negative does not always mean scurilous." as I heard one talking head say.

A negative campaign ad shows what's not to like in an opponent, but a "good" negative ad is one that tell the truth about the opponent. A bad ad is an outright lie, and somewhere in the middle is the presentation of data in a biased light. Negative campaign ads work. You like X about Obama/McCain, you won't like Y about Obama/McCain.

Sometimes "bad" ads can work, too, which is where the outcry should be directed. Trouble is, too many "good negative" ads are labeled as lies because it doesn't show their side in a favorable light. I see a lot of charges about lies but if people take the time to check the facts, or even the response (as opposed to knee-jerk reactions), it often helps to shape a more informed perspective.

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

But Obama against Palin is a Republican creation. Senator Obama has continued to question Senator McCain's policies while virtually ignoring Palin, much to the angst of the opposition. Senator Obama has continued to treat Governor Palin with respect and deference, despite the Republican insistence that the campaign must now be about her against him. The strategy simply didn't work.

I disagree with all but one point. It has been the MSM against Palin. Obama has taken the high road (in commenting on Palin's daughter's pregnancy) and has tried to focus on McCain. He's done a fair job of that. However, the MSM has been the cause of all the Palin Passion (and sympathy since most people think the MSM has been unfair and mean - see the side-by-side comparison of Charlie Gibson's questions to presidential candidate Obama and vice presidential candidate Palin).

As for drawing the Palin/Obama distinction - they certainly are doing that whenever they can (you call it a "creation") - and they certainly SHOULD do that. Everytime Palin is criticized for experience, Obama's lack of experience is brought to mind. Everytime accomplishments are brought up, Obama's come to mind. Every "investigative" controversy attempted only brings up Obama's controversies. Every "heartbeat away from the presidency" is countered with the actual "heartbeat of the presidency."

Palin has been in the news every day since her pick. It is the shotgun approach to see what might "stick" to her and diminish her popularity. Every time she is denigrated or underestimated, I am thrilled because people give her more attention and when she comes off as likeable it only makes people think that her attackers are wrong.

I've advocated an issue comparison long ago (check the older posts). It doesn't seem to be as important at this juncture. The race is tied now and the independent band is betting more and more narrow.

Mark

[David Parker]

Just a comment: (maybe this point was made already).

"Negative does not always mean scurilous." as I heard one talking head say.

A negative campaign ad shows what's not to like in an opponent, but a "good" negative ad is one that tell the truth about the opponent. A bad ad is an outright lie, and somewhere in the middle is the presentation of data in a biased light. Negative campaign ads work. You like X about Obama/McCain, you won't like Y about Obama/McCain.

Sometimes "bad" ads can work, too, which is where the outcry should be directed. Trouble is, too many "good negative" ads are labeled as lies because it doesn't show their side in a favorable light. I see a lot of charges about lies but if people take the time to check the facts, or even the response (as opposed to knee-jerk reactions), it often helps to shape a more informed perspective.

That's a great point.

"Negative" does not mean "Lies". Obama's campaign has been screaming "Lies" about the McCain "education" ad (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=e83dcac3-0e13-4111-adde-afecffae4c18), yet as we have seen here (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=), and here, (http://www.naznet.com/community/showpost.php?p=220154&postcount=21) it was absolutely correct. Was it negative? Yup. A lie? No.

Here are all the McCain/Palin videos. (http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/multimedia/)

I've searched for the Obama videos, but they don't seem to be available on his website. Guess you have to hunt them down on Youtube. Can start with this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6reQLzgywzk) where he repeatedly quotes McCain out of context by chopping off the second half of his sentence. Here is the full quote. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1wag6M8_aQ) Just "negative"? Or a "lie"? It certainly isn't honest.

[Ryan Scott]

We've gone over McCain's treatment of Obama's tax plans as well. He's either lying or calling Obama a liar. Either way it's unbecoming.

[Rich Hudson]

I disagree with all but one point.

As for drawing the Palin/Obama distinction - they certainly are doing that whenever they can (you call it a "creation") - and they certainly SHOULD do that. Everytime Palin is criticized for experience, Obama's lack of experience is brought to mind. Everytime accomplishments are brought up, Obama's come to mind. Every "investigative" controversy attempted only brings up Obama's controversies. Every "heartbeat away from the presidency" is countered with the actual "heartbeat of the presidency."

when she comes off as likeable it only makes people think that her attackers are wrong.
Mark

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I agree that the Republican braintrust "should" continue to cast Governor Palin as Senator Obama's real opponent. Each time that is done it has a positive effect with the Republican base that will not be changed regardless of what the continuing "vetting" by the press reveals. The upside for Democrats is that it diminishes the man actually nominated for President by the RNC. I'm not convinced that Governor Palin has permanently galvanized the enthusiasm of any group save the conservative right.

"Bounce" is an excellent word picture to describe what happened with the Palin selection and a highly charged convention. In my view enthusiasm is weakening as Senator Obama continues to successfully tie Senator McCain to George Bush. The present economic crisis will prove to be a timely gift for the Obama campaign.

RCP is showing the race tied again this evening, with Senator Obama's favorable rating on top again.

Confidence is high. :basic07

[Mark Metcalfe]

Confidence is high. :basic07

You are one of a very few on either side of the fence. I congratulate you on your coolness.

A reminder to us all (including myself) that none of us should peg our emotional investment to the day-to-day, hour-to-hour swings of the polls with 47 days, three presidential debates, one vice presidential debate, and financial and international issues brewing. Unless and until a candidate moves into the 5-8 point range in the national polls, it is a statistical toss-up and no candidate can be comfortable nor confident of winning this election. For states races, you may be able to squeeze that to 4-percent.

National poll shifts of a point or two may be red states getting redder or blue states getting bluer. A 5-point national lead might be saying something. Less than that does not necessarily make a confident story for either side.

Mark

[Rich Hudson]

You are one of a very few on either side of the fence. I congratulate you on your coolness.
Mark

Thank you Mark. :q) I just look to Senator Obama for my example of how to remain calm in the center of the tempest.

I appreciate your relaxed and thoughtful analysis of the race. The thing that amuses me the most (though it can create serious problems) are comments that come off sounding like the talking points from Rush Limbaugh's morning show. All the necessary references to people being "desperate" or "frustrated" or "freaked out" are properly addressed in that entertainment setting.

And it's easy enough to spend the morning at RCP finding commentators who support our views. While I'm grateful for the links and love reading both sides of the argument, a series of relevant quotes won't do much to save me from my liberal heresy. :rolleyes:

A few weeks ago Jim Wallis made a comment that may or may not have been original with him...I don't know for sure, but I like it.

"On November 4th no one will be voting for the Kingdom of God."

[Rich Hudson]

On a truly serious note:

Like many of you I've been pestered with viral emails that decry the serious threat to our democracy if Senator Obama is elected. Lately a new brand of pleadings from tormented souls has begun to litter my inbox.

Among the newest is a prayer request that I am taking quite seriously, though I might have worded it differently. In it I'm asked to pray for Governor Palin who is under serious attack from godless leftwingers. As it came from a member of my church I chose not to reply. (usually don't anyway):o

But Governor Palin is on my prayer list for sure. Whether she ultimately becomes the next VP or returns to govern the state of Alaska she needs God's grace and help to be effective, to execute her duties, and to grow in her job every day she is in it. The same is true for all of the other candidates. We will serve her well as we remember to lift the Governor and her family to the throne of the King of Kings.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I appreciate your relaxed and thoughtful analysis of the race. The thing that amuses me the most (though it can create serious problems) are comments that come off sounding like the talking points from Rush Limbaugh's morning show.

Oh, I've already been referred to as "Limbaugh-esque" and reading from "McCain talking points."

McCain should be looking up my talking points. :-)

Mark

[Ken Pell]

It certainly is apples to apples. Challenging someone's Christianity over how they vote is patently offensive. Preaching damnation to those who oppose a president's political policies is patently offensive. And if the Catholic priest who was a guest preacher in Obama's church was fair game, then why not the Jews for Jesus speaker who was a guest in Palin's church?

I'm not desperate at all. I thought it was much ado about nothing when it was done to Obama. I'm just curious as to why the press sensationalizes one pastor for being out of the mainstream, while totally ignoring a pastor who is also out of the mainstream.

I do see a difference in Wright and Palin's pastor. This is not about the press coverage but the pastors involved.

One was definitely seeking publicity, making the rounds, and inviting coverage -- even saying/doing things to get coverage (like timely appearances and controversial words at the NAACP gathering and at the National Press Club). He is not naive and knew what he was doing.

I am not sure the other one is doing that.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I do see a difference in Wright and Palin's pastor. This is not about the press coverage but the pastors involved.

One was definitely seeking publicity, making the rounds, and inviting coverage -- even saying/doing things to get coverage (like timely appearances and controversial words at the NAACP gathering and at the National Press Club). He is not naive and knew what he was doing.

I am not sure the other one is doing that.

Ken, I was disappointed with how Dr. Wright handled the limelight.

However, the press et al. sought him out first, just as the press et al. has sought for Palin's pastor.

[David Parker]

Few things are worth more than winning an election. Integrity is one.

Am curious whether you Hans, or any other Obama supporter has an "integrity" problem with Obama's new Spanish language ad. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTI3MmI1NWM2YThmZmE1Mjc0ZTk0YmRhYzE0MWUzNjA=) That link is from a conservative on-line magazine. I link it because it provides many good cross links.

But even ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html) calls it "Es Erróneo".

Any Obama supporter have a problem with this?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Any Obama supporter have a problem with this?

Yes, I would prefer that he had not run it.

[Rich Hudson]

I would hope for better than this. A story on NBC news last evening dealt with this issue by making a comparison of McCain/Obama stances on immigration. They are so similar I would be hard pressed to choose one based on the findings.

Unfortunately, it cuts both ways...doesn't it? Both campaigns are having difficulty with accuracy. Not to justify one or the other...but it does cut both ways.

Interesting that the video seeks to tie McCain to Limbaugh. I wouldn't have thought of that! :basic04

[Ken Pell]

Ken, I was disappointed with how Dr. Wright handled the limelight.

However, the press et al. sought him out first, just as the press et al. has sought for Palin's pastor.

I understand. And, as my initial post said, I was referring to the pastor's not the press.

I have no appreciation or trust in the press.

The fact remains, Jeremy, no one made Wright do what he did. It would be hard to convince me that he did not welcome and maybe even invite the opportunities that came his way.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I understand. And, as my initial post said, I was referring to the pastor's not the press.

I have no appreciation or trust in the press.

The fact remains, Jeremy, no one made Wright do what he did. It would be hard to convince me that he did not welcome and maybe even invite the opportunities that came his way.

I re-read what you were saying Ken, and I misunderstood. You said as much as I said in your first post. Sorry.

[Jon Bemis]

Am curious whether you Hans, or any other Obama supporter has an "integrity" problem with Obama's new Spanish language ad. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTI3MmI1NWM2YThmZmE1Mjc0ZTk0YmRhYzE0MWUzNjA=) That link is from a conservative on-line magazine. I link it because it provides many good cross links.

But even ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html) calls it "Es Erróneo".

Any Obama supporter have a problem with this?

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I'm not thrilled about McCain either. But I must say, this particular ad is on the border of bizarre. Not only is Rush Limbaugh taken totally out of context (he was quoting Mexican immigration law, and the ad claims he was talking about illegals in the US), but they try to join McCain and Limbaugh at the hip on immigration. :eek: They are mortal enemies when it comes to this topic! In fact, Limbaugh pretty much beat McCain up over this issue during the primary season.

At the end of the ad Obama says "I approved this message." He needs to follow it up with "I apologize for this message."

McCain took the low ground with his lipstick commercial. Obama now owns it with this one.

[Bruce Carriker]

I am disappointed that two candidates who promised to be different are proving to be dirty campaigners, just like every other election. The sad fact is this: American voters believe the lies that reinforce their fears and stereotypes. And so politicians play to those lies.

When the American people finally reject a politician EXPRESSLY for below-the-belt campaign tactics, only THEN will candidates take notice and clean up their acts. The sad fact is that negative campaigning wins. The McCain campaign picked up on that first, but both sides are hot at it now.

[BobHunt]

You know when people make fun at Karl Rove, it always comes back to me, that when he advised the Bush admin. on the election, Pres Bush won. I say Karl Rove is very intelligent, no matter how you disagree with him.

[BobHunt]

You know when people make fun at Karl Rove, it always comes back to me, that when he advised the Bush admin. on the election, Pres Bush won. I say Karl Rove is very intelligent, no matter how you disagree with him.

[Charles W Christian]

You know when people make fun at Karl Rove, it always comes back to me, that when he advised the Bush admin. on the election, Pres Bush won. I say Karl Rove is very intelligent, no matter how you disagree with him.

Well, Rove is very intelligent, that's true. Of course, I could name a whole litany of men and women from history who are intelligent, yet whose values are not in line with Christianity as I understand it. Rove would be on that list, sadly....He's smart, but I question his integrity.

Too often we are so impressed with "smart" or even "crafty" that we forget to ask: "But is it correct?"

Just thoughts....

Charles

[Charles W Christian]

I, too, think it is a mistake for the Obama campaign to play "gotcha" the way the Hillary campaign and the McCain campaign have done/are doing....

There's sometimes a need in politics to defend and to even "hit back," but I think doing so at the expense of truth is a problem, whether we're talking Republicans or Democrats.


Charles

[Ken Pell]

I am disappointed that two candidates who promised to be different are proving to be dirty campaigners, just like every other election. The sad fact is this: American voters believe the lies that reinforce their fears and stereotypes. And so politicians play to those lies.

When the American people finally reject a politician EXPRESSLY for below-the-belt campaign tactics, only THEN will candidates take notice and clean up their acts. The sad fact is that negative campaigning wins. The McCain campaign picked up on that first, but both sides are hot at it now.

My wife and I have been without television for almost 60 days (we will remain this way for about another 30 -- maybe through December). I did not see the conventions or the current ugly campaigning ... I do not miss it at all.

We chose a good time to go without. It makes the campaign season so much easier to sift through and tolerate.

[BobHunt]

Well, Rove is very intelligent, that's true. Of course, I could name a whole litany of men and women from history who are intelligent, yet whose values are not in line with Christianity as I understand it. Rove would be on that list, sadly....He's smart, but I question his integrity.

Too often we are so impressed with "smart" or even "crafty" that we forget to ask: "But is it correct?"

Just thoughts....

Charles

OK Charles, now you have made quite a statement, I want some examples to show he is not a Christian, or that he lacks integrity and can not be trusted. I think you will come up with at least one instance where we can not know for sure what really happened, but I will let you answer first.

[Charles W Christian]

OK Charles, now you have made quite a statement, I want some examples to show he is not a Christian, or that he lacks integrity and can not be trusted. I think you will come up with at least one instance where we can not know for sure what really happened, but I will let you answer first.

I have never heard Rove claim to be a Christian at all. He knows how to appeal to Evangelicals, and he surely has benefitted from the Evangelical Christian vote, but that in itself doesn't make one a Christian. I have heard James Carville talk about God, faith, and needing the "Christian vote", but I have never heard him make any explicit claims about his faith, either. Aren't Carville and Rove two sides of the same coin?

It sure looks like that to me....

Charles

[Charles W Christian]

Furthermore, about Rove: Google Karl Rove and Evangelicals and you'll see more than one claim that Rove is a "nominal Christian" who has never identified himself strongly with a Christian confession.

There is one from Salon.com (a more left-leaning publication) and one from Christianity Today (NOT a left-leaning publication, to say the least).

Two former White House officials have written books that claim that Rove made fun of Evangelicals and Evangelical leaders often, and that Rove saw them as sort of a "necessary evil" in getting and keeping Republicans in power (David Kuo's book is one example)....

As far as Rove and integrity....Hmmmm.... There are many ways to answer that, and to demonstrate a lack of integrity on his part in many cases, and this too has been echoed by even former Bush administration officials (see Scott McClellan, for instance).

It's funny to me that Evangelical Christians tend to like to defend a guy like Rove, but tend to be disgusted with a guy like Carville, when they're pretty much the same "political species," so to speak.

Of course, it's easy to understand when you factor in that many Evangelicals just want their "team" (i.e., their "party") to win, rather than wanting to be salt in light without being bound to strict party loyalties (which may indeed be a form of idolatry, by the way). But, that's my opinion, and you asked, so there it is....

I mean no disrespect to you, Bob. I appreciate the dialogue opportunity, and I'm sure you're a nice guy.

Thanks,
Charles

[Tonya Sneed]

I haven't followed this whole thread, so maybe this has already been discussed, but it's well established that Karl Rove was behind the vicious rumors back in 2000 that McCain had "an illegitimate black child" when, in fact, he has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh. This smear campaign in no small way caused McCain to lose in South Carolina, and very well may have prevented him from becoming the Republican nominee.

But now that Rove supports McCain, he's encouraging McCain to tell the public about his adopted daughter and the compassion and love that the McCains had for this little girl. . .

That's sleazy politics if there ever was any.

[Bruce Carriker]

You know when people make fun at Karl Rove, it always comes back to me, that when he advised the Bush admin. on the election, Pres Bush won. I say Karl Rove is very intelligent, no matter how you disagree with him.

Josef Goebbels was a pretty intelligent guy when he was advising Hitler in the 1930's, too. Not calling Rove a Nazi...just pointing out that intelligence doesn't make one a good guy.