Diana, you seem to object to the media holding Obama responsible for his own words.

Posted by: Gordon | April 17, 2008 1:46 PM

"Rather unbelievably, ABC anchors used 50 minutes of airtime attacking Democratic candidates on tabloid issues, including a line of questioning from George Stephanopoulos lifted from right-wing pundit Sean Hannity."
--On the other hand, the Compassion Forum featured questions straight from the mouths of left-wing pundits. Point?

Posted by: jesse | April 17, 2008 1:58 PM

Diana, you hit the nail on the head. From my seat at the Compassion Forum I saw some of the most substantive discussion of the issues so far in this campaign, and the best questions came from the faith leaders in the audience.

Posted by: Dan | April 17, 2008 2:42 PM

The Compassion Forum may not be interested in Obama's friendly relationship with an unrepentant terrorist, but I'm willing to bet that many undecided voters will be interested in William Ayers, regardless of how you might try to say that its only a partisan thing. I don't think that bombing the Pentagon, Capital, NYPD headquarters, etc... falls within the bounds of acceptable political discourse and I think that most Americans will not think so either.

I guess I have to congratulate you for being the first to try to excuse Obama for having a relationship with Ayers. Others, both here on this blog and elsewhere on the left will be along soon.

This is the type of issue that will lead Obama to defeat. However, if he is willing to associate himself with people with the character of Ayers and Rev. Wright, that defeat will be well deserved.

Posted by: MadHatter07 | April 17, 2008 3:26 PM

With regard to the Hannity question, just in case you don't listen to Hannity regularly: George S was a guest on Hannity's radio program on Wednesday promoting the debate and talking to Hannity about the questions he might ask. Hannity said, "You have to ask him about William Ayers." GS responds, "Who?" SH: "Unrepentant terrorist, etc. You have to ask this!" GS: "I'm writing, I'm writing."

So then in the debate, GS asks the Hannity question. It could not have been more transparent. I'm sure a recording of the radio program is floating around out there. For ABC to get its talking points from right-wing AM radio was to say the least surprising.

But I guess you all know that, since DBB did not mention Ayers in her piece but is congratulated "for being the first to try to excuse Obama for having a relationship with Ayers." Huh?

I thought Obama handled it well enough, but a question about, oh say, White House meetings where torture was approved and what the candidates would do about it if they are elected might have been more interesting and shed more light on how they would actually conduct themselves as president.

The "debate" was gotcha politics in its very worst sense.

Posted by: richard | April 17, 2008 4:58 PM

Thank you, Diana. That last debate was pathetic and insulting to the intelligence. The only encouraging thing was that the audience heckled the moderators and many people sent angry e-mails to ABC. It's good to see people stand up to media stupidity and condescension during an election year.

And on today's Washington Post Online, one of the "smart" media outlets, we have an online blog asking whether people are justified in taking interest in Paris Hilton's affairs. Even when there's no "story," this beltway paper of record had to keep her in the news.

It's after 5--time to get out of this office and have a beer.

Posted by: I and I | April 17, 2008 5:18 PM

I watched some of the "debate" last night then turned it off. It was repetitious and boring beyond belief. Nothing of substance was said, just a farrago of rehash and speculation. If George Stephanopolous hadn't thrown out some zinger questions, I probably would have gone to sleep.

Posted by: Jsens | April 17, 2008 6:02 PM

Nicole,

Read the book "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. It presents an interesting frame for many of today's events. Some will probably try to tell you , "Well , he just made a lot of that stuff up!" There are 53 pages of references.

Interesting reading!

John

Posted by: John Kludt | April 17, 2008 6:10 PM

William Ayers

So no one or we should be interested in Obama's relationship with this guy? He admitted that he planted bombs and felt that they did not do enough. Nixon got hung by the major networks for his association with Bebe Raboza which he had a casual relationship with and never allowed him to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom. It is interesting how the drive bys will try to smear a conservative with one thing and totally ignore it with a liberal.

So are we to be hung with the company we keep. So we be judged by the pastors and mentors that we have allowed to influence out lives?

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 17, 2008 6:49 PM

I didn't say we shouldn't be concerned about this alleged association with Ayers. I just said that MadHatter07 was being dishonest when he "congratulated" Diana Butler Bass for being the first to excuse Obama's association with him. Since Ms. Bass didn't even mention Ayers or talk about this alleged association, MadHatter was putting words in her mouth.

Let's keep the topics separated.

Having said that, however, I'd be suspicious of this alleged Ayers-Obama association simply because I know Hannity would be grinding his axe in bringing it up. I would want more information--and from unbiased sources--before concluding that this allegation is worthy of my concern.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | April 17, 2008 7:04 PM

It discourages me when I think that many, many Christians take pleasure in seeing two people slice and dice each other. It discourage me when I see Christians joining in taking comments, twisting it to create an "offense", and rushing to judgement like the rest. It's so like the Pharisees watching, waiting, to bounce...and to accuse. Where is the Christian maturity that strives to understand the meaning, the person, and the context of a person's words?

Posted by: Jeanette | April 17, 2008 7:23 PM

" It is interesting how the drive bys will try to smear a conservative with one thing and totally ignore it with a liberal.

"So are we to be hung with the company we keep. So we be judged by the pastors and mentors that we have allowed to influence out lives?"

The Moderate One is in a Hell of a lot of trouble by the company he keeps here!

Posted by: N.M. Rod | April 17, 2008 8:28 PM

So no one or we should be interested in Obama's relationship with this guy? He admitted that he planted bombs and felt that they did not do enough.

Two words: Nelson Mandela.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 10:07 PM

Interesting.

Some substance did come out of last night's debate, namely some rather interesting policy regarding Israel and Iran.

p

Posted by: Payshun | April 17, 2008 10:14 PM

I would give any amount of money to see Obama compare Ayers to Nelson Mandela.

Well, Mandela did go to prison for nearly 30 years for sabotage, while (according to these posts) Ayers only threatened it. And look how Mandela turned out.

Sojo has spent plenty of time talking about the tabloid stories (affairs, Ted Haggard, Bob Jones and the like). So they can hardly claim the high ground here.

Those issues deeply affected the church or Christianity as a whole, plus they were public knowledge. Apples and oranges.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 11:29 PM

I had the pleasure of meeting Diana Tuesday night at Christ Church Episcopal in New Haven, where we exchanged a few words about the Compassion Forum. I share her feelings about the shocking contrast in tone and content between Sunday's event and the debate in Philadelphia.

I'm new to the blog (although I read the book God's Politics when it came out), so I don't know the personalities here. (Although I can tell by his use of the term "drive-by" that Moderatelad is a Limbaugh listener, and thus his name would appear to be a misnomer.) But it's interesting to see readers who are presumably Christian so willing to judge Barack Obama for his acquaintance with a former revolutionary. I wonder how you would feel about someone who chose to befriend prostitutes, tax collectors and other sinners?

Posted by: Josiah Rowe | April 18, 2008 12:23 AM

The "righteous indignation" of the religious and social left always amazes me. You would think that I would get used to it, but I don't. They have absolutely no problem with gotcha questions when it applies to President Bush or V.P Cheney or any right-winger like crazy Hannity, but cry foul when it happens once or twice with their candidates.

I just think its hypocrisy at the highest level. Honestly, it is also extremely transparent and often quite disturbing, only because as is any extreme, right or left, its unapologetically myopic!

Posted by: Armed2win | April 18, 2008 7:14 AM

Obama's "bitter" statements, the company one keeps, one's pastor...these are all important to the public because they reflect on the degree to which a candidate is like them--that they have shared values. These are all vulnerable points for Obama, which is why DBB and others are upset.

You wish. But in fact, those are things the conservatives want to hang on him because he's a clear threat to their authority, just as they tried to do with Bill Clinton -- but it didn't work then and it's not working now. Oh, and if you want to talk about "shared values," remember that John McCain is and always was a supporter of the war in Iraq, which takes him down a peg in the eyes of much of the public.

The "righteous indignation" of the religious and social left always amazes me. You would think that I would get used to it, but I don't. They have absolutely no problem with gotcha questions when it applies to President Bush or V.P Cheney or any right-winger like crazy Hannity, but cry foul when it happens once or twice with their candidates.

It's not at all hypocrisy, thank you very much. It's that, again, the people you mentioned have always used such distractions hopefully to deflect people's attention from the real issues of the day -- and on top of that, the right believes that power is its birthright. "Trust us," they say -- well, those days are over.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 18, 2008 8:13 AM

In a previous essay the writer penned the phrase "the pornography of social humiliation" and also brought up the German term "Shadenfreunde." These terms describe this blogging site as well. A serious essay is written by one of the sojourner people and then the commenters slice and dice the essay. This is supposed to be interesting. But on a supposedly Christian related site it give a whole new meaning to the scripture "Judge not."

Posted by: Nickerson | April 18, 2008 8:39 AM

Posted by: John Kludt | April 17, 2008 8:12 PM

"There is a smugness on the Left that simply refuses to apply the same criteria to the actions of its own that it applies to its perceived enemies."

Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, April 17, 2008

"Resistance to information that doesn’t mesh with our preconceived beliefs afflicts both liberals and conservatives, but a raft of studies shows that it is a particular problem with conservatives. For example, when voters receive mailings offering them free pamphlets on various political topics, liberals show some interest in getting conservative views. In contrast, conservatives seek only those pamphlets that echo their own views."

Are we all living on the same planet? Sometimes I doubt it.

Posted by: Another nonymous | April 18, 2008 10:44 AM

Does Kristof have any hard data...

Kristoff wrote about "a raft of studies." It's hard for a newspaper columnist to cite specific references because of space limitations, but I bet Kristoff would give them out upon request. Why not e-mail him and ask?

http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html

D

Posted by: Don | April 18, 2008 11:03 AM

The ABC debate was just a continuation of the debates throughout this election cycle. All of them have been among the worst ever. They've asked the same questions they would for the general election and, as would be expected, the candidates all agree. I'd like to know how they're different. That means there's no point to asking Democrats about WMDs in Iraq or asking Republicans whether Ronald Reagan was the greatest president ever. It also means that I wanted to hear from people other than Hillary, Obama, Rudy, and McCain. I can't believe anyone thinks this was worse than the Youtube or Fox debates.

That said, I was interested in the gun control questions. The moderator claimed Obama had, in his own writing, supported a ban on handguns and Obama denied it. Someone was lying, does anybody know who?

Posted by: Jake | April 18, 2008 11:23 AM

Another:
I like Will and Brooks too (I'm not so familiar with Kristol). And I have friends who are more "liberal" than I who also read them regularly, especially Brooks.

And here's some more anecdotal evidence. The "conservatives" with whom I regularly correspond almost to a person refuse to even look at evidence that might challenge their opinions. Some of that evidence isn't even from "liberals."

Peace,

Posted by: Don | April 18, 2008 11:42 AM

Anecdotal evidence: 1) all the conservatives posting here at Sojo are by definition seeking out liberal opinions to discuss. 2) the NY Times up until hiring Kristol had employed no socially conservative columnist; up until hiring Brooks had employed no convervative-leaning columnist (in truth, Brooks is the most moderate columnist they have).

More anecdotal evidence: Sojo has defended Obama at all costs and is unwilling to write any column at all critical of either Obama or Clinton.

At times I read Krugman, though most of the rest of the liberal Times columnists (Rich, Herbert, Dowd, etc.) are the kind who use excessive sarcasm that demeans those who disagree with them (the kind you avoid).

"The moderator claimed Obama had, in his own writing, supported a ban on handguns and Obama denied it. Someone was lying, does anybody know who?"
--Read Brooks's column today to see who was lying. I remember some publication claiming that "truth-saying is a moral value."

Posted by: jesse | April 18, 2008 12:30 PM

Didnt George S work for the Clintons? I agree with Diana....the journalists were out of touch with the American People's real issues. What a waste of time, talent, and treasure. Just watched a PBS Special on Health Care and other countries did better for less. Why cant we do the same?

Posted by: Lorenzo | April 18, 2008 12:49 PM

Brooks had a nice column today in concluding Obama may be in trouble come the general election. All should read.

Posted by: Cads | April 18, 2008 2:32 PM

Actually, Kevin, I really don't think most people are stupid, even though they can care about some awfully stupid things - as, I am well aware, can the most highly intelligent, educated people. Any left-winger who despises populism does so at his or her own risk.

You recently admitted to being a food snob. Maybe we can trade recipes. :-)

Posted by: Another nonymous | April 18, 2008 3:31 PM

It was fun to watch, I'll say that. Two people, neither of them anywhere close to 'Statesmen," eager to respond to almost any question put to them, with every other word something like, "fight to (do this or that for you)," "hope," "change", the shameful current administration," and on and on.

And our alternative is John McCain. Dear God, what are we going to have in the White House come january, 2009? And where are the Washingtons, the Jeffersons, the Madisons, the Lincolns, the statesmen? Have we no one left that we could hire that would at least put on a better facade than these three jokers? I have four adult children, and three grandchildren, and I worry for their future. I really do.

Posted by: joekc | April 18, 2008 5:05 PM

What ex-president Carter has done this week in the middle east is nothing short of treason. A true statesman does not meet with known terrorist groups or go against the stated policy of his country.

Posted by: Cads | April 18, 2008 5:46 PM

What ex-president Carter has done this week in the middle east is nothing short of treason. A true statesman does not meet with known terrorist groups or go against the stated policy of his country.

That's your opinion, and I believe it to be short-sighted. For years the South African government would not meet with "terrorists," which was shorthand for anyone who wanted to overthrow apartheid. I have no problem with Carter meeting with Hamas, if for no other reason than dealing with it might convince some to lay down its arms -- I mean, do you think isolating it would do any good? It certainly hasn't worked so far, especially since it does represent a sizable chunk of the Palestinian population and indeed was aided by Israeli intelligence to counter Yasser Arafat.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 18, 2008 6:39 PM

From the Charter of Hamas:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

So Rick, even by their own charter, Carter's trip is a waste of time. These are truly terrorists intent on the destruction of Israel. Comparing them to those wanting to overthrow apartheid is ludicrous.

Posted by: Cads | April 18, 2008 10:36 PM

So Rick, even by their own charter, Carter's trip is a waste of time. These are truly terrorists intent on the destruction of Israel. Comparing them to those wanting to overthrow apartheid is ludicrous.

Not if you understand the history and culture of that region. Arabs, especially Muslims, hate Israel not so much because of anti-Semitism -- in fact, some Jews had lived there for millennia -- but due to their long-standing resentment toward the West because of how Western nations for a century or so have exploited them; Israel, which basically was a creation of the British, is a constant reminder of what they feel is Western colonialism. Furthermore, Muslims feel that the very land is sacred -- again, not terribly unusual for that part of the world, as ancient Israel had the same territorial attitude -- and that the presence of "foreigners" offends God.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 18, 2008 11:13 PM

Funny since the Dems took over congress in 2006 unemployment has uncreased by 5 to 10 percent gas prices have alomost doubled and consumer confidence has plummeted. Just think what a democrat president would do this country. As libs always do they will blame our president for this but how can they. After he came into office eight years ago.

Posted by: Doug | April 19, 2008 1:10 AM

Cads: What do you see as the difference between Zionism and Apartheid?

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 19, 2008 2:18 PM

The state of Israel thus automatically has enormous moral clout, ...

That's dubious, to say the least. For openers, ancient Israel in the first place was expelled from the land for rank disobedience toward God and it sure isn't following God today, thus making such claims suspect.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 19, 2008 3:51 PM

Posted by: Another nonymous | April 19, 2008 3:45 PM

Does suffering and victim-hood equate to "moral clout"? If so, African- Americans should be entitled to a homeland created by the UN in, oh say, Mississippi. Why is it "moral clout" to claim land and the upper hand based on one's race? Zionism is not a movement. It is racism. In that sense I can see many parallels to South African apartheid.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 19, 2008 5:59 PM

"That really doesn't matter -- it still needs to be called to repentance, especially if it claims to be "God's chosen.""

Actually, I don't disagree. I respect what Jimmy Carter is doing, and I hope he succeeds.

"Does suffering and victim-hood equate to "moral clout"?"

Yes.

"If so, African- Americans should be entitled to a homeland created by the UN in, oh say, Mississippi."

I won't necessarily disagree with that either, at least in principle.

"Zionism is not a movement. It is racism."

That's where we part company. Sure, there are racist elements in Zionism, but that doesn't make the whole idea racist.

Posted by: Another nonymous | April 19, 2008 6:31 PM

Pastor Jeff -

Thanks for the invitation. I'll give it a go.

I had a friend once who insisted that to be Jewish was to suffer. This is perhaps an extreme view, but it points up the fact that the Christian idea of suffering as a route to righteousness has deep Jewish roots.

I recently watched the extraordinary film "The Pianist," which I would highly recommend. IMO, it does a better job of presenting the personal reality of the Holocaust than the more celebrated "Schindler's List." The movie begins in 1939 as the concert pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman is playing a Chopin nocturne in a broadcasting studio in Warsaw just as the first Nazi bombs fall. It continues to show how he and his family are first humiliated, then herded into a ghetto, and eventually shipped off to Treblinka.

Szpilman manages to escape, and spends the rest of the war hiding out in Warsaw. At first he aids those who are planning the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto. Then he watches from a secret hiding place as the uprising is relentlessly beaten down, and the last brave survivors are machine-gunned practically across the street from him.

By the end of the movie he is practically a walking ghost, and is saved only because he meets a German officer who appreciates his piano playing. Later, he is seen performing with an orchestra in Warsaw after the war, having earlier returned to the recording studio to broadcast the same Chopin nocturne he was playing when the ordeal began.

The movie has a raw emotional power that comes from its deliberate understatement. Outrageous, brutal, and unimaginable acts are presented as matter-of-fact reality - as when a crippled old man is taken out onto his balcony by the SS and dropped three stories to his death, or when SS officers force the captive Jews to dance for their entertainment.

Even the telling of such a story, let alone its telling by Roman Polanski, who himself lived in the Krakow ghetto as a child and saw his entire family shipped of to their deaths, is a compelling act of moral courage. That's what I mean by clout.

It was at the same time that all of this was going on that a ship full of Jewish refugees was floating off the east coast of the US desperately seeking asylum, only to be turned back again and again.

So yes, the founding of the state of Israel came about because of the deep, numbing realization that nobody else was going to take care of the world's Jews, even when they were being starved to death and left to die in the streets of the capital cities of Europe - if they were lucky enough not to be herded off to one of those railheads leading to hell.

I wish I could say that the rest of the story has been smooth sailing, but things rarely work out that well. A pastor friend of mine who spent time in the Middle East said simply that we are mistaken to look for good guys and bad guys; there there are nothing but bad guys. And yet...

Posted by: Another nonymous | April 19, 2008 9:12 PM

Amen, Diana. You really "nailed" it (apologies to Stephen Colbert!). ABC really, really blew it. Honestly, I didn't watch it but after reading about it afterwards, I was glad I didn't waste my time. I was really surprised about George Stephanopoulos, but Gibson was no better and he was rightfully "booed". The media is the problem in two ways:

1. They are literally giving McCain a "free ride". I know some out there are going to be "slinging mud" at me for saying this, but it's the truth and it needs to be said.

2. They don't ask substantive questions, only "gotcha" questions, and even when they do it's for such a short time that the issue really wasn't discussed in depth. That's a debate? I think I'll pass. We need to have a free and honest discussion of important issues, because "gotcha" questions don't inform they only feed the frenzy (you know what I mean).

To close, I'm upset that I missed the Compassion Forum and wish I hadn't. I don't think it would have changed my mind, but at least it was worth watching (and being in the audience).

Posted by: Debbie Lackowitz | April 20, 2008 5:40 PM

A critical mass doesn not necessarily mean the majority. It simply means there are enough persons interested in those "dumb" questions that TV advertisement slots can be more profitable.

Kevin apparently doesn't think there are that many stupid Americans. Kevin never watched "The Jerry Springer Show" or any of the many reality shows that degrade the human being. (Or maybe he does, and thinks they're intelligent.) With entertainment like this being so profitable, it is any wonder that the same mentality has seeped into politics?

Posted by: I and I | April 21, 2008 9:37 AM

"What's the dif?"

All Wolverine said was that YOU might consider the QUESTIONS childish.

You said that the questions were the result of a critical mass of stupid people.

That's the dif.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 21, 2008 2:46 PM

CRI introduced Hagee this way:

“Well-known to millions of Christians because of his television ministry, Rev. Hagee (the book [Hagee’s 1996 book, Beginning of the End,]lists him as Dr., but he does not have an earned doctorate) is the pastor of one of America’s largest Word-Faith churches.

The Liberty Flame reported in May 1994 that during the time when Hagee was serving the Charismatic congregation at Trinity Church (1976) in San Antonio, he divorced his wife, resigned and married a young woman in the congregation, Diana Castro. Custody of Hagee’s two children by his ex-wife, Martha, went to her.

In a letter to the church, Hagee admitted immorality, which later became part of the court records in the custody battle. Martha later also remarried and started another family. Not surprisingly, there is a hiatus from 1976 to 1987 left out of Hagee’s web site biography."

Kinda makes you wonder if McCain has been reading this book.
I don't think that Rev. Jeremiah Wright's resume reads quite like this.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM

"Gotcha" journalism is alive and well on the God's Politics blog too. People seem to have a tremendous knack at exploiting any toehold to reinforce their own beliefs (on all sides) and talk right past one another. Facts seem to be inconvenient side issues that mess up our ideological stance.

Why again is it critical that Obama knew slightly William Ayers? He clearly hasn't been advised by him, but shared space in a couple of meetings, and stated that he didn't agree with Ayers' position. Is there some horrendous virus that permanently contaminates us if we breathe the same air as someone of questionable character? On the other hand, John McCain actively sought out the endorsement of Hagee, and told George Stephanopoulos that while he denounced Hagee's virulent anti-Catholic vitriol, he was still pleased to have his endorsement. Huh?! So it's OK to seek out an association with a person with highly questionable views, while blithely brushing aside the vitriol, but someone else is crucified for a casual association. (Obama apparently didn't even know that Ayers was a professor of education, and thought that he was an English professor.)

And while we are getting on our high horses to condemn Jimmy Carter for association with terrorists, what about Menachem Begin? He was a leader of Irgun, which carried out a devastating TERRORIST bombing of the King David Hotel in the 1940's with major casualties, while trying to convince the British to establish an Israeli state. I guess we should have impeached every president who even talked to him too? Leaders of many successful political movements that arose from armed struggle have very dirty hands. (Consider Northern Ireland, Lebanon, etc.) Yet we seem to find it just dandy to interact with them if they are aligned with "our" side, whatever that may be. (Thus we have Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein while delivering the poison gas for which we subsequently condemned him when he was no longer useful to us.)

Finally, since everyone is still busy beating up Obama for his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright (and yes, members of the United Church of Christ really ARE Christians, contrary to a claim a few days ago - Rev. Wright's theology and the process of an altar call, confessing sin and accepting Christ as your saviour would be very familiar in most evangelical churches), you might find the following tidbits of information of interest (and then you can go back to guilt by association).
There was a trenchant exchange on YouTube between a FOX interviewer and a white Catholic priest who knew Jeremiah Wright well. He described him as a loving man, and emphatically rejected the spin that the media were trying to make stick based on a few inflammatory comments. He said that those quotes did not come close to capturing the Christian love of Jeremiah Wright. There was also a column in the Chicago Tribune recently from a 25-year white member of Trinity United Church of Christ. His black fiancee broke off the engagement because she was worried that marrying a white man would destroy her credibility in the black community. Reverend Wright found out about it and called her, asking her to drop everything and come see him. After four hours of discussion, she reconsidered, and the couple has been married for 25 years now. Rev. Wright emphasized to the fiancee that racial divisions are destructive and completely incompatible with being a faithful Christian.

So there we have it. Don't get me wrong. If you don't like Obama's politics, or anyone else's, more power to you. Vote your conscience. ("God isn't a Republican, or a Democrat!") But try to make your decision based on facts that actually hang together, not based on a wild extrapolation of some questionably relevant anecdotes taken out of context because that resonates with your emotional convictions (which unfortunately is actually how most of us make political decisions in the end anyway).

Sorry about the rant.

Blessings!

Posted by: Jim | April 22, 2008 12:25 AM