From the executive, to the House, to the Senate, Republicans were soundly defeated across the board in Tuesday's election, giving the legislative edge to the Democratic Party.

A landslide of Democratic proportions happened.

Flashback

Flashback to 2004, after the defeat of Senator John Kerry by the incumbent George Bush, I can still recall being lectured by Sean Hannity on television, in condescending tones explaining why the Democrats lost. Hannity repeatably pointed to the post-electoral map of the United States, convincingly engulfed in a sea of red, telling us to " look at it Democrats."

Why did the Democratic Party lose so? Hannity stated that the Democrats lost because the United States is a "center right" nation and implied that the liberal values of the Democratic party were now out of step with mainstream America and the map showed that liberalism had been irrecoverably invalidated in the US of A.

Yep, as far back as 2004 the myth of the "center right" had begun.

Hannity, look at the map.

Former Wisconsin Governor and presidential hopeful, Tommy Thompson, accurately described the electoral map as "The whole thing is blue!" And regarding our state, "Wisconsin is the bluest of the blue!”

I'm not here to rub in the Democratic victory because I remember how I felt in 2004, however if we are to apply Hannity's argument, Republicans – you are out of step with mainstream America.

But you see, I'm not a blockhead like Hannity. I don't believe that for a second that republicanism is dead. 

I Wish I Knew How to Quit You

Republicans, as you begin rebuild your party after all the finger pointing has finished...please, do not  talk, walk, marry, or dress like a liberal.

I, we, America, needs you the way you are. In fact, if going more to the right, more conservative, thinks that helps you as some pundits suggests, by all means, go further to the right.

You are the opposition after all, sometimes vile and sometimes grudgingly correct, but opposition nonetheless. I love you just the way you are – in all your regressive splendor – especially on social issues.  

Stay the course. Don't become liberals. 

Liberals, please do not become conservatives under the false perception that you must to do so to maintain your majorities. 

Myths Exposed

There is no center and there is no moderate - there is no monolithic mainstream when matter of social priority involved. Because a majority of people agree on an issue, it does not make the belief correct.

If you believe that gays can marry or have civil unions - then you are on the left. If you believe that gays can not and approve of legal bans against it, you are on the right. There is no middle ground. There is no center. There are no moderates where these issues are concerned.

You are either pregnant or your not.

Yet, that does not stop politicians and pundits from making this un-nuanced, broad appeal to popularity.

In Conclusion

Democrats and liberals did not win largely on social policies and values as the ballot initiatives in various states illustrate, but on more pressing concerns of the economy, domestic policy, and foreign policy.

It is those issues which the nation has shifted left. Went blue. Shifted liberal.

Civil rights for gays and homosexuals, abortion rights, sits firmly in the clutches of the right. Shifted toward the social conservatives. Went red.

And the "center" - be damned.

One of the first things I learned about politics, sitting in Mr Rupnow's current events class during my sophomore year of high school at Kettle Moraine, is that America historically elects only w.a.s.p's for president.

We just elected the first African-American President of the United States of America, I said, as I held my wife's hand watching Senator Obama's acceptance speech.

Amazing!

Yet, during the night as I watched the returns, I held my breath until enough states went blue and Obama could take a commanding electoral lead. I could not forget the Kerry defeat of 2004. For the first 90 minutes, McCain lead with one southern state after another capitulating red, beginning with Kentucky. Electorally, that was no problem if Obama could eat into some of the states which have voted republican in the past, like Ohio and Florida - which he did seemingly without effort.

When Charlie Gibson called the election quietly and almost non-nonchalantly for Obama, there was a moment of silence until my wife and I realized what he just said.

My wife and I promptly celebrated with a $4.99 bottle of champagne.

While its fantastic that Obama did indeed win – by an electoral landslide no less, and McCain conceded as honorably as he did, there is still much work that liberals need to do in raising social consciousness of how we should regulate social policy administrated by our government..

On that note, one the most evocative moments last night was watching the interview with Congressmen Jim Sensensbrenner at the Ryan campaign – who was re-elected over the less crazier choice of Constitution Party candidate... what's his name... Raymond? To the interviewer, Sensenbrenner stated something to the effect, that in order for Republicans to once again lead, they had to return to a party of low taxes and fiscal responsibly, good governance, and true social conservative values.

I wonder what Sensensbrenner meant by "true social conservative values." If "true social conservative values" is legislating policy predicated upon a religious worldview - then I'm afraid I won't be voting Republican anytime soon.

Presently, the Republican party is largely a party of social conservatives. The culture wars that social conservatives purposely engage in, like the banning of gay marriage or civil unions, creationism versus evolution, threatening a woman's health where abortion is concerned, religion over science, drug policy, are really just a whole host of quasi-religious or outright religious principles.

Republicans actively crusade for these principles at the behest of churches or religious right advocacy groups – forever negating the concept of small government by legislating these religious values and imposing them onto our collective freedom of conscious.

I do agree with the opinions of other pundits who state that this country is center-right, if not in economics and regulation, at least in the sphere of the social values I listed above. The banning of gay marriage in Arizona, Florida, and at time of writing this as returns trend, California – illustrates that liberals have much work to do in achieving equality for a class of citizens and restraining government off our bodies and in the choices that we make in our relationships, and the beliefs we wish to, or not, ascribe to.

This is why I admired McCain when he stridently stood up to the religious right, a key base of the GOP as the "agents of intolerance." If our democracy is to survive, it must not function as camouflage for one religion over another - even if that religion is one idiosyncratic variety of a larger whole.

That is why liberals, in this regard, are functionally libertarians – that is, more like true social conservatives then social conservatives are. Liberals are more prone to maintain and fight for the boundaries between religion and secularity.

Personally, my libertarianism expresses my social liberalism which in turn is informed by Humanism and the secular nature of our Constitution. Science, for me, illuminates reality, where religion only substitutes superstition and unfounded and untestable notions on reality.

Where will the Republican party go after this? Where will the Democratic party go after this?

I do not know, but I do have hope.

But it is clear to me, that both parties have a long way to go on these social issues.

Democrats are closer, while Republicans are far from it.

While McCain has been a solid, staunch conservative on social issues the sum of his political career, many conservatives like Colin Powell, Christoper Buckley, Scott McClellan, have now been joined other prominent conservatives who would prefer an Obama presidency over McCain. You can read a quick snapshot of their reasons here.

Joining the aforementioned, you'll note that McCain's pick of Sarah Palin weighs heavily in their decision to vote and endorse Obama.

Kevin Adelman. A "lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001."

Adelman endorses Obama because:

"Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick."

Francis Fukuyama.  Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Strassuian, colleague of Harvey Mansfield, William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, and author of The End of History (sitting on my back burner) endorses Obama.

I’m voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don’t work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale.

McCain’s appeal was always that he could think for himself, but as the campaign has progressed, he has seemed simply erratic and hotheaded. His choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was highly irresponsible; we have suffered under the current president who entered office without much knowledge of the world and was easily captured by the wrong advisers. McCain’s lurching from Reaganite free- marketer to populist tribune makes one wonder whether he has any underlying principles at all.

America has been living in a dream world for the past few years, losing its basic values of thrift and prudence and living far beyond its means, even as it has lectured the rest of the world to follow its model. At a time when the U.S. government has just nationalized a good part of the banking sector, we need to rethink a lot of the Reaganite verities of the past generation regarding taxes and regulation. Important as they were back in the 1980s and ’90s, they just won’t cut it for the period we are now entering. Obama is much better positioned to reinvent the American model and will certainly present a very different and more positive face of America to the rest of the world.

The Economist. Offers one of the least enthusiastic endorsements of Obama, but an endorsement nonetheless. I think they take a rather balanced approach over the question of who to elect or not.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

...

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.

...

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

Zach, over at Blogging Blue observes the significance of this endorsement:

"The Economist is well known for (and freely admits) its tendency to favor free market economics.  We’ll see if that stops some conservatives from employing their newfound favorite word — “socialist” — to refer to the 165 year old publication."

So if your one of those 14% of voters are still can't decide on who to elect, please consider what conservatives say about Obama. Their endorsements are significant because they refute the assertions by the McCain campaign that Obama is not ready for office.

You can almost hear it now.

It was the liberal media. The anti-Americans. The elites. The socialists. The communists. The pagans.

Undoubtedly, we will once again witness a frantic Pavlovian, finger-pointing response from the chorus of republican disapproval in the wake of a McCain loss – especially by our host of conservative bloggers at Lake Country Living.

No, instead of laying blame squarely on McCain, they will focus their indignation toward these tried-and-true scapegoats and bogeymen while effectively providing themselves an effective "out" from reality.

To that end, we can now add two more voices to this chorus and a new scapegoat as two top McCain advisers point to Sarah Palin and describe her as a "diva" and unable to take "no advice from anyone," to my favorite, "whack job." Palin is now the new, convenient target of republican scapegoating as favorable polling of Palin among independents and swing voters continues its long slide southward, dragging the McCain/Palin presidency with it.

Don't you understand? Dear God! Blame anyone and everything but McCain. Just you never mind the fact that it was John McCain who selected Palin as a running mate as a preview of his first presidential-like decision. I guess it must be those godless pagans at fault again.

And while your minding the never minds, forget that it was McCain who decided to smear Obama as a socialist, the Antichrist, terrorist, or anti-American that the media was all too happy to repeat. These attacks by the McCain campaign were quickly shunned by Americans, who are more interested in solutions than name calling. The only traction that these smears have any credibility are with stead-fast republican adherents. Now with only less than a week to go, McCain sensing the folly these attacks, has returned to less sensational attacks on Obama's character by focusing on the issues of experience, the economy, and foreign policy. This approach seems to work. McCain is now, once again, benefiting with a tightening in the polls.

But remember though if McCain should lose  – at all costs, McCain is not to be blamed.

Pathetic.

Predictably, republicans are following the same pattern they established before and during Bush's presidency such as blaming all of Bush's failures on Clinton. As if, Clinton was in office during 911. Please. Of course, Bush only receives credit if something good (or at least non-disastrous) breaks his way. Republicans would rather have us forget that an effective president makes good, sound decisions that succeed in spite of the decisions of past presidents as the "blame Clinton" red herring assuages.

It seems to me that republicans live in a paranoid, cloistered world confirmed by their delusions and the echo chamber which they shroud themselves in. Liberal bogeymen at every corner, under every bed and bathtub, and imaginary, impossible conspiracies all aligned against conservatives – one after another.

Perhaps, conservatives should wake up and retire these myths of theirs if they really want to lead in the future.

From my own experience in the wake of the 2004 election, this is no way to live. The fear and suspicion you stoke up will only burn you up. John Kerry lost because he was – after all, a pretty week candidate and a terrible communicator. Like McCain, he was unable to be a consistent "straight talker."  Kerry, as with McCain, never organized the campaign machine that Obama now possess along with Dean's 50 State Strategy. As Stephen Hess, fellow of the Brookings Institute, observes that the Obama campaign has the "best run presidential campaign of the modern era." If liberals and democrats would have remained fixated in the delusion that the media was set against them (or some other such nonsense that I heard liberal pundits espouse during the time), McCain would not be fighting to maintain the slim leads in six states which have all voted republican in the past two presidential elections.

After the dust settles and whether or not McCain wins, if republicans wish me to vote for them in the future, they should return to classical conservatism. Focus on the size of government and the effective use of resources, and leave the social issues behind. Keep your legislation away from the sovereignty of my or a woman's body. Let me decide on what drugs I choose to put in it, or who I sleep with  – that is none of your business. Acknowledge science to direct appropriate energy policy and education. Defend church and state separation and not only work to guarantee my freedom of conscious, but keep government out of marriage as well.

Most importantly, stop dividing the country up into hamlets of "real-Americans" and "anti-Americans."

Despite our ideological differences, we liberals and conservatives largely share the same goals. A safe, fair, and prosperous United States of America. Otherwise, if you continue on the course you are on, you'll only find yourself as head of a Torquemada of your own creation – persecuting anyone who does not espouse your likewise dogmatic political beliefs.

And democrats - heed this as well. 

 

To you Obama supporters, go vote early as an absentee. I voted absentee two weeks ago.

To McCain supporters. No need to vote. God is in your corner.

(Special thanks to one of my friends - a McCain voting republican who sent this to me.)

Free speech is a wonderful, beautiful thing.

Just ask Mark Belling.

Posts ago, I defended McCain and his supporters that while their rhetoric against Obama was indeed hateful and incendiary, there was no reason to fear because there had been no evidence of any violence perpetrated against any Obama supporters.

I was wrong.

WISN reports:

Nancy Takehara, 58, was canvassing a neighborhood Saturday when the attack happened.

In an exclusive WISN interview, Takehara said that she drove from Chicago to help with Sen. Barack Obama’s canvassing effort.

She said that she and a friend were attacked by a disgruntled homeowner.

The man allegedly grabbed her by the back of the neck and started pulling her hair.

"The next thing I know he's telling us we're not his people, we're probably with ACORN, and he started screaming and raving. He grabbed me by the back of the neck. I thought he was going to rip my hair out of my head. He was pounding on my head and screaming. The man terrified me," Takehara said.

Obama called her to make sure that she was OK, Takehara said.

"This negative stuff has to stop, [we’re] not about attacking each other," Takehara said.

" I thought he was going to rip my hair out of my head. He was pounding on my head and screaming. The man terrified me."

VIDEO

Violence like this does not appear from nowhere. This attack is just the culmination in a series of attacks against liberals and voting rights.

In the last presidential debate, McCain alleges and  amplifies this personal attack against Obama:

"We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."

I'm calling it now.

McCain may win the election, but has lost the Presidency. His meek record of bipartisanship is forever damaged and he will not be able to lead as President.

(Source)

 

In the last part, Colin Powell comments on the Bachmann Torquemada after endorsing Barack Obama for President.

A visibly angry Katrina Vanden Heuvel weighs in on Minnesota Congresswoman Bachmann.

It's real. Go ahead. Add a caption.

Apparently, God can not will McCain to win this election alone.

This weekend in Iowa, Arnold Conrad – a former pastor, declared in an invocation prior to a McCain rally that ...

"There are millions of people around this world praying to their god -- whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah -- that his [McCain's] opponent wins [Obama], for a variety of reasons..."

Okay, leaving aside this man ignorance, both Hinduism and Buddhism are religions, not names of deities. Furthermore, while Hinduism recognizes Jesus' divinity, Buddhism can be practiced without supernatural beliefs and is conditionally ATHEISTIC. Yes, that's correct, no belief in God is required to be a Buddhist. (In some cases, even I qualify as a Buddhist.)

In the case of Islam, Allah, is an Arabic word meaning "the one" and is not a name, and is the same God of Judaism and Christianity. Christians believe that Christianity replaces Judaism. Muslims believe that Islam replaces both Christianity and Judaism. Abraham is the patriarch of all three religions.

How is McCain a liability to God? The pastor explains...

"And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day."

Oh my. This erection... I mean this election, is a matter of whose God is bigger! The implication, of course, is that Obama is an outsider as are his supporters, because they pray to different gods.

Xenophobia anyone? Is seems that Conrad is continuing the McCain campaign tradition of stirring up unnecessary divisiveness. In the United States, religion is a more effective wedge-tool than politics.

By the way, what country does this pastor live in? Americans are overwhelmingly Christian in heritage as Obama is a practicing Christian.

Anyone with a little Biblical instruction can read between the lines in this sermon. What are good believers instructed to do when someone "serves other gods?" Chapter 13 of  Deuteronomy instructs that you should "surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword"  and "utterly destroy" it while re-asserting again that should it be done at the "edge of the sword."

Conrad speaks in the language of religious warfare. If McCain does not win, God is diminished. **

After the election, perhaps former Republican Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, can give God a hand with a product he used to "pitch" for.

(Source)

 

** "Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."  (Champan Cohen)

 So I'm making dinner and I hear John McCain on the television declare:

"My friends, we've got them just where we want them..."

Really? Really John McCain?

Your idea of placing Obama in a fragile position is to make sure he's polling 10 points over you nationally?

The broadcaster commented that no candidate has ever over-taken such a tremendous gap.

That's your winning strategy?

McCain, your a funny guy.

Not as funny as that guy presently office.

But, funny, nonetheless.

The other day, a co-worker of mine completed an online survey which was designed to help one decide what candidate you should vote for, Obama or McCain. She announced the results, yet, I could hear the trepidation in her voice over of it.

Because of this, I asked her if she planing to vote in the upcoming election. Not likely was the reply. I asked why. She stated that she did not have enough command of the issues and did not want to vote uniformed.

I can understand that feeling and applaud the sentiment. Voting in Chicago was a daunting task for me. That was the longest ballot I have ever encountered and compound that with that extra burden of trying to make informed decisions - I felt overwhelmed. Suffice to say, I did my best.

Sitting on the Fence. Photo © MC Pickard.

However, who really has a solid wonk-like command of all the issues involved? I try. But honestly, I do not know as much as I should. How can you? We all do our best when it comes to voting. Many cases, we hold our noses and hope that our selected candidates do not betray us and hold fast to the priorities that we find dearest to ourselves.

That's why I suggested she should prioritize her concerns. I stated mine. The Iraq War, terrorism, and the Supreme Court. I went further to suggest that once she established these priorities to research those positions of the candidates.

Left unspoken to my co-worker, I do trust Obama more on these issues, especially who will be appointed to the Supreme Court. That is not to say, my trust is uncritical. A McCain White House would only sightly tweak the Bush doctrine, only "reforming" it enough to make it more Bush than Bush could deliver, and continue the current Republican agenda of the last 8 years. As far as the issue of the Supreme Court, McCain sold himself out when he reversed his criticism of the religious right to kiss their butt. Buy one. Buy the dozen.

That aside, I also made the recommendation that if she needed to check her gut check, check out VoteHelp which I had written about earlier. I should have also added that she read FactCheck.org to compare the candidate's public statements to reality.

My co-worker is a soon to be mom and is a younger women in her early 20's. Look at your life. Who are you? Do you have family or friends in Iraq? Are you student? Business owner? Create a list of concerns that are more likely to affect your life.

Arbitrarily begin with three issues and once you come to some conclusion on those, expand from there if you can. Tally the number of times you agree or disagree with a candidate. If you can, try to ignore your personal feelings. Never let personal sentiment interfere with your judgment.

Basically, you want to draft a up list of criteria and then you want to investigate the merits of each. 

Lastly, vote! 

When discussing religion, it's impolite to mention that the Old Testament Jews were some of the first practitioners of religious warfare, later following Akhenaton in the Egyptian desert. Deuteronomy 2:33-36, God instructs the Jews that the people of King Heshbon, should be "utterly destroy(ed) the men, women, and the little ones."

Damn that's hardcore. Even children?

And that's only one incident of religious warfare, cruelty and violence, that God commands. Here's more. As to the number of innocents that God has killed,  2,391,421 not including, at least in some cases, women and children. And this doesn't account for the impending Tribulation. There are billions and billions of unbelievers in the world - Jesus will have much blood on his hands that day.

With this theme in mind, I bring you some good, Old Testament butt-kicking violence relevant to the news of today.

God will Rain Fire on the Islands of the Sea
Big surprise, Robertson calls again for the end of the world. Apparently he expects Israel to start a bombing campaign on Iran in the next 75 to 120 days.

Can you be any more non-specific?

I predict that in the next 75 to 120 days the Midwest will face extreme weather. Brilliant. Give me a funny robe and hat.

You think in Roberson's daily conversations with God, Robertson could get the old guy to clarify his "prophesies" that Robertson this time bases on various news reports and the Bible and not from direct intercessory prayer?

“It all will conclude when God has rained fire on the islands of the sea and on the invading force coming against Israel.”

The old kook doesn't just end with Isaiah 11 and the Middle East.

"However, we may not be spared nuclear strikes against coastal cities  in America"

Robertson answer to this apparently imminent event?

"If there was ever a time for fervent prayer, it is now."

If there is no attack, Robertson claims victory. If there is an attack, Robertson declares victory. Talk about fixing the game.

Who does Robertson think he is? If he's praying so that God will spare the rod because we've spoiled His "holy mountain" he opposes God's will.

Perhaps, Robertson is just slightly more moral than the God he magically talks to.

Unless, Robertson is praying that God will rain that fire and end the world?

Such is the morality of good, fundamentalist Christians these days.

(Source)

Gov. Sarah Palin's Anti-Pagan Coreligionists
If the right-wing wants to associate Obama with Wright, then its only fair to bring up the religious dirt on Sarah Palin.

Mary Glazier was the leader of not-then-Governor  Sarah Palin prayer group and in 2005 "anointed and blessed Sarah Palin as a political leader."

What is Glazier guilty of?

In 1995, Mary mobilized a prayer network for Alaska's prisons and began experiencing spiritual warfare as never before. She had received word that a witch had applied for a job as chaplain of the state's prison system... Mary recalls, "As we continued to pray against the spirit of witchcraft, her incense altar caught on fire, her car engine blew up, she went blind in her left eye, and she was diagnosed with cancer" ... "Ultimately, the witch fled to another state for medical treatment. Soon after, revival visited every prison in Alaska. At the women's correctional facility in Anchorage alone, 55 of 60 inmates found Christ. "Ask largely," Mary says. "Intercessory prayer is making a major difference in North America."

As pagan blogger Jason Pitzi Walters observes:

"Glazier and her prayer warriors claim to have made God blind and give cancer to a Wiccan chaplain. Is this anything but the most malefic of magic? Any Pagan who proudly claimed to have given a Christian cancer, or put out one of the eyes of a Christian, would be rightly shunned and rebuked."

Jason is correct. If a pagan or Wiccan had done that, you'd see the media equivalent of another Christian crusade against their coreligionists, the Cathars.

As far as magic that Jason comments on, I'll leave them to have fun with that.

(Source)

Go Slay In the Spirit
My wife once said to me that I was obsessed with God. That's not true, I am more obsessed with religion if anything. Lately, I've become obsessed with Jesus.

Myth or not, the man is a great pugilist. Hit them high. Hit them low. Turn the other cheek - Jesus delivers the knock-downs.

 

 

 

 

For a blasphemous good time, check out Faith Fighter.

I even put the hurt down on that upstart, Lord Xenu!

From time to time, I open my blog to guest posters to comment on issues on blog at LCL. Over the months, Liberal Hammer and I have become friends. An no, Liberal Hammer is not a sock-puppet. Check with Erin Mellone to verify our IP addresses.

You can leave comments or concerns below, or email Liberal Hammer via this site.

_________________________________________________________________________

What would you say if a left-wing Radio Host was in the front row of an Obama campaign event? And that this host did not disclose his media credentials as part of the media and a paid public speaker before his statement. What if the Obama Campaign was using hatred and smears to incite his crowds the past few weeks? Would that not raise a questions?

Well this is what happened in Waukesha at the McCain town hall meeting on October 9th, 2008.

James T. Harris was the right-wing talk show host who was in the front row. He has a radio show on 620 WTMJ called “The National Conversation”. Before his statement he did not DISCLOSE his media affiliation, “I am begging you, sir! I am begging you. Take it to him!" radio host James T. Harris told McCain, to cheers from an audience of several thousand. (Source)

Not surprisingly, the Journal Sentinel, parent company of 620 WTMJ did not DISCLOSE their association with Harris as his employer. Is the Journal Sentinel Corporation in the business of creating news? They already play right-wingers that are riled up by the right-wing talk show hosts against their “perceived liberal biased newspaper” for ratings. But below are points of what is important about yesterday’s events:

1. The fact that Harris did not disclose his role in the media before his statement is dubious, disturbing, and misleading to the national audience and voters!
2. The fact that Harris was in the front row shows some sort of undisclosed coordination with the McCain campaign and begs the question if he was being used as a plant. It was an unethical and disingenuous exercise for a supposed unscripted “town hall” event!
3. Is Harris’s payment the publicity he is receiving now?
4. McCain’s media perception as genuine and a straight talker does not hold any water with a planted media operative in the front row of a “town hall” meeting!
5. You are forced to ask questions about McCain’s Judgment, honor, and his sincerity at the beginning of the campaign where he said he would stay away from negative campaigning, when in fact 100% of McCain’s advertising in our state has been negative?

And what about this “Inciting the Republican Mob” campaign tactic by the McCain Campaign?

Where is this leading us?

Americans should beware the angry mob and the few fringe mentally disturbed racist right-wingers who might take Harris’s and McCain/Palin’s terrorist and socialist implications & smears seriously. These reactionaries may turn them into action that may interpret “Take it to Him!” as something other than character assassination.

As of today, Rasmussen, CNN/Time, WISC-TV, and the Strategic Vision polls track that Senator Barack Obama leads Senator John McCain in Wisconsin with a margin from anywhere as low as 5% to as high as 10%. If these four independent polls are correct, McCain will lose the state's ten electoral votes.

Sensing this, we can see why McCain and sidekick Palin took the approach they did today with their Waukesha appearance. Instead of campaigning in a non-Republican stronghold, McCain and Palin decided that a campaign stop in Waukesha would show just how brave they were. Brave? How brave can you be in front of an audience so partisan and from a county that votes predictably Republican year after year – as predictably as a flood of unregulated Chinese manufacturing that produces cheap, landfill products seemingly designed to deliver grievous bodily harm.

McCain assures us, he's a proven, experienced leader.

However, what kind of leader are you, when your playbook includes standard right-wing chotckies? You know those thirty-two pieces of flair that republicans wear on their chest as some kind of badge of honor? Instead of substance, McCain blames the usual suspects as an excuse for the adversity that he faces. Regardless of the accuracy of these polls, the effect on McCain/Palin campaign can be evaluated by the rhetoric they use.

Today, when a supporter yells "it's the socialists" McCain replies "the Democrats" for the ongoing housing and banking crisis. Ignoring the fact that it was he, John McCain, who suspended his campaign to deliver zippo.

Your leadership, Senator?

McCain does not limit the his excuses to the Democratic Party alone. Why are McCain and Palin doing so lousy in the polls nationally and regionally? Well as Fox 6 reports, McCain/Palin blames the "mainstream media" because, apparently, the MSM isn't asking tough questions. Awww.... that mean old mainstream media. Poor McCain :(

Again Senator, your leadership?

Are we witnessing another wheel falling of the "sidekick" express? I don't know. McCain is correct when he stated today, that "the political pundits in the last two years have written off my campaign."

Obama has not yet won and the campaign season is decidedly not over, and McCain has an immense political apparatus supporting him. We can expect more of the same from McCain in the next twenty-six days. At least, McCain will have drilled the necessary fuel for his own excuses. 

If this is the way McCain runs a campaign, how will he run a country?

Oh yeah... like Bush - he will blame Clinton.

That's pin 33 and counting....