Her affiliation with the Pentecostal Assemblies of God definitely boosts her stature in my book. Just think - when she attends a state funeral, she'll be able to speak in whatever the language is of the host nation.

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 4, 2008 1:26 PM

I guess that you had to give the type of speech she did, when she has no record herself to run on- hardly a testimony to faith she espouses.

"Her affiliation with the Pentecostal Assemblies of God definitely boosts her stature in my book. Just think - when she attends a state funeral, she'll be able to speak in whatever the language is of the host nation." Posted by: Sister Marie

Another feather in her cap to bolster her foreign policy experience, as if monitoring those dangerous Russian and Canadian borders weren't enough.

Posted by: JamesM | September 4, 2008 1:36 PM

It was a good speech, and had its intended result--it mobilized and energized the GOP base, which is what they needed. McCain chose the right person to do exactly that.

However, her experience is seriously in question. McCain chose her for a boost to his campaign, but not, importantly, to have a leader in place who can take over if he is incapacitated in some way. He said his choice would be someone who could be president right now. She is emphatically not that candidate.

So, the message I get from him is that his political goals and aspirations are more important than providing the best leadership for this country. That is dangerous.

Any shred of vote I had left to give him disappeared with his pick for the VP. The choice was reactionary and bowed to the wishes of the party. I miss McCain 2000, who had my vote without reservation. What happened to the person who, for the first time in my adult life, got me excited about politics?

Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 1:48 PM

They're all rude and condescending...

Well, Obama certainly was not rude and condescending last Thursday night. He commended John McCain's service to the country and spoke highly of him personally. I didn't hear anything like that from Palin last night. Instead, she was insulting to Obama regarding his community service.

D

Posted by: Don | September 4, 2008 1:53 PM

Actually, I don't think it's sexist to ask whether the parent of a special needs child and a pregnant teen should be running for vice president. No, Palin should not face special scrutiny on this question because she's a woman. She should face scrutiny on this question because she is a parent, and I believe that scrutiny should be equal opportunity. It applies to fathers too. Neither fathers nor mothers should get a free pass on subjecting their families to public scrutiny at a vulnerable time in order to further their own political ends.

Posted by: Vickie | September 4, 2008 2:00 PM

D --
He was rude and condescending about McCain's houses. The man's wife is an heiress -- why would he know how many houses she bought?

His ads of late have been very disappointing to me.

Posted by: frankie | September 4, 2008 2:03 PM

I watched Palin's speech last night with interest and came away saddened that I will not be able to vote for McCain. I fear we will have four more years of rule by the religious right, and, frankly, they've done nothing for this country for the last 8 years except turn more people away from God. As a Catholic, Palin's pentacostal background concerns me. I have been visited by members of my local Assembly of God church and have been told that I am not a Christian because I am Catholic.

Posted by: Maydell | September 4, 2008 2:22 PM

Sometimes I'm amazed! First I was shocked that Jim didn't outright bash Sarah Palin -- he was actually pretty fair to her. I will say, however, that asking if she's "qualified" isn't really fair when he's never (that I recall) asked that question about Obama -- who is CLEARLY less qualified than Governor Palin!

But wow -- how in the world do any of you see her speech as "just plain rude and condescending" and "insulting". She just plain stated the FACTs and did it brilliantly -- and most pundits, Left or Right, agree. It's NOT "insulting" to point out that Barack's experience as a community organizer doesn't even come close to being a qualification for the White House. That's just reality.

The guy who gave an "insulting" speech was Barack H Obama! Remember when he suggested that war hero John McCain wouldn't pursue Osama Bin Laden "to the cave he lives in"? Also, how many times did I hear Barack say "John McCain doesn't get it"? The dude's arrogance knows no bounds!

Christians unite and stand up for Sarah Palin, no matter what your political stance. She's one of US -- a real, genuine born-again Christian! She's downright refreshing!

Posted by: Al N | September 4, 2008 2:28 PM

He was rude and condescending about McCain's houses. The man's wife is an heiress -- why would he know how many houses she bought?

Well, I think I would know, if it were me.

Nevertheless, Obama did praise McCain's service and spoke honorably about his character--something that Palin certainly did not do in return.

Posted by: Don | September 4, 2008 2:30 PM

Al N,
Even the comment about the Greek pillars was rude and not needed. People in Denver worked hard to put that stadium together and frankly, it didn't even look Greek to me! Why the Republicans made fun of that is beyond me.

Posted by: frankie | September 4, 2008 2:35 PM

I would never go on record as saying "a woman's place is in the home" or anything like that. Nor do I agree with the blatant double standard that has been foisted on women candidates. But who has been responsible in recent years for all this "foisting?" Now, all of a sudden the right- wing is crying "foul" at something they have been doing for decades.
I am old enough to remember when the right-wing "social conservatives" lambasted Hillary Clinton because of her "sorry I didn't stay home and bake cookies" comment. I also remember Dan Quayle and his negative comments about the TV character Murphy Brown and her (heaven help us!) unwed mother status. I recall Pat Robertson addressing mothers on his TV program, saying that mothers were so important that they shouldn't work outside the home: they should "sell Mary Kay..."
Admit it: we all know that if the tables were turned and a Democrat had picked a woman with the same family dynamics as Sarah Palin's, the right-wing "social conservatives" would be on it like a duck on a June bug! My head spins just thinking of all the negative comments that would be hurled, and they would be hurled by the same people who are admiring Sarah Palin's hockey mom toughness right now. It appears that the right-wing is a tad hypocritical.
PS to "squeaky:" I agree with you.

Posted by: Laura J | September 4, 2008 2:37 PM

I gotta ask what's happened to our criterion for great speaking when I keep hearing praise for 1st Obama- who I admitted was overrated- and now Palin, who's definitely worse. She wore a painted smile and smacked her chops several times during her scripted speech. Come on, a middle schooler could have done better!

Is it because she's a woman that we're too afraid to stand up and say her speech stunk?

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | September 4, 2008 2:42 PM

"Christians unite and stand up for Sarah Palin, no matter what your political stance. She's one of US -- a real, genuine born-again Christian! She's downright refreshing!"

Let's see. Palin supports the war in Iraq, which doesn't even come close to meeting just war criteria, let alone the Sermon on the Mount.

Palin's a hypocrite. "The Daily Show" last nite featured a tape of her at a forum, held last spring, at which she criticized female politicians who whine about sexist media treatment. Now she and the GOP are resorting to the same kind of "whining."

Supposedly, Palin supports "Bible-based family values," yet I detect no regret that her unwed teenage daughter is pregnant. Indeed, Bill O'Reilley and other Repubs. argue that the pregnancy simply means that Palin's family is like "the rest of us." Can you imagine the reaction of one of Obama's daughters was a teen and pregnant?

Palin's cheap shots at Obama's community organizing wer disgusting. Here was a young man who could have made a fortune for a high-powered law firm. Instead, he tried to help empower a down-trodden community.

Palin IS a good speaker, and obviously a quick study. Her looks are an asset (as are Obama's to him). She may very well end up being the first female president. Her self-comparison to Harry Truman is unconvincing; Truman was a longtime political activist and politician.

Posted by: carl copas | September 4, 2008 2:54 PM

McCain's writers wrote the speech for Palin, we all know that. MSM told us that they were up all night doing it.

I was also a McCain Democrat in 2000 but when Bush pushed him out with negative politics, I returned to vote for Al Gore. I still regret that Gore lost to the Supreme Court, the voice of the people was lost. But now that McCain has morphed into King George III, he could have the reincarnation of Gandi as a V.P. and I would not vote for him.

Posted by: Paul | September 4, 2008 2:56 PM

Roger- it's not a matter of comparing her to Obama, it's a point that we seemed to be too easily impressed. Whatever you think of Hillary, her speech blew both Palin's and Obama's away. Jesse Jackson would blow Obama away. That's just good criticial thinking.

Some critical thinking as well needs to be applied to claims by and about Palin. She really wasn't opposed to the Bridge to Nowhere and I think examination of her supposedly taking on "the Big Oil Companies" I think will wilter under examination too.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | September 4, 2008 3:03 PM

In my opinion, Palin is the perfect choice to produce maximum drama and fire up emotions in order to cloud the real issues. Appears to be like goodold repub spin doctoring. Haven't we seen enough of that? Hopefully, none of the campaigns will focus on her and whatever "issues" she's put out there too long. It's not worth it.

Posted by: Peter | September 4, 2008 3:13 PM

All predictable responses. If she does not "affirm" all of Wallis' edicts and take out a two-year subscription to Sojourners she is not "compassionate enough". Regardless, she is not The Obamassiah so will get no support from Jim.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 3:15 PM

Al N

I'm still laughing about your post. Was that satire?

A few questions, if you were serious...

How does Palin have more experience than Obama?

What else did Obama do in addition to being a "community organizer?" Is that really all he has done in his career?

How do you feel about the title "President Palin"? Do you really think she is prepared to be president? If so, explain why. How will she do on the national level? On the international level? What credentials and experiences does she have to support your idea that she would be able to do well as president?

Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 3:17 PM

governor Palin's status as a mother has been questioned NOT by the Democrats but by the conservative Christian community. It's important to know that. I find it odd that anyone thinks she has more experience than Obama who has been a national senator dealing with major legislation. We now know that Governors do not necessarily carry with them wisdom and good judgment. Administrative experience may just be placeholding. Her addition to the ranks of ultra-Dominionist Christian conservatism is very worrisome. Iraq is hardly called by God but by Mammon and Thor. She is not just a "hockey mom" as she SELF describes. She is an extremist on all levls and will continue to do harm to our diverse nation and our national polity.

Posted by: Elizabeth Sholes | September 4, 2008 3:19 PM

I notice so many defenders of Palin bemoaning that "they" say she can't be a mother and run for VP. I haven't heard anyone say that...just all the talk about how "they" are saying it and it is sexist. I do question, however, the jugdement of any parent, mom or dad, no matter what their career plans who knowingly exposes a downs syndrome infant (or any infant really) to so much stress and stimulation. She can run for office...just get a sitter and let that kid off the convention floor.

Posted by: stephanie | September 4, 2008 3:25 PM

Sarah and George Bush hve the same mindset.

from the anchorage daily news:
Iraq war, gas line God's will, Palin said
MINISTRY STUDENTS: Governor asked them to pray for troops, pipeline.

By GENE JOHNSON
The Associated Press

(09/04/08 01:50:16)

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God's Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.

Palin told graduating students of the church's School of Ministry, "What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys." As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.

"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

"I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded," she added. "But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

Palin attended the evangelical church from the time she was a teenager until 2002, the church said in a statement posted on its Web site. She has continued to attend special conferences and meetings there. Religious conservatives have welcomed her selection as John McCain's running mate.

Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, lamented Palin's comments.

"I miss the days when pastors delivered sermons and politicians delivered political speeches," he said. "The United States is increasingly diverse religiously. The job of a president is to unify all those different people and bring them together around policy goals, not to act as a kind of national pastor and bring people to God."

The section of the church's Web site where videos of past sermons were posted was shut down Wednesday, and a message was posted saying that the site "was never intended to handle the traffic it has received in the last few days."

Posted by: Joyce | September 4, 2008 3:31 PM

I don't care whether or not Governor Palin's daughter is pregnant. I DO care that she "supports" her daughter's pregnancy but slashed money for pregnant teenagers in the Alaska budget. Is there evidence that her policies support poor pregnant teens and their children? Show me.

Posted by: Jane R | September 4, 2008 3:33 PM

The Republican s have been depressed for years now . . Mr. Bush has brought such shame through the war & embarrasment due to scandal, deceit, lying. It is a serious situation. Our nation is in peril and I believe 'ego' is at the heart of the downfall of Washington.

Well, Sarah Palin has what seems to be a huge ego and I believe that is contradictory to the message of Jesus.

What surprised me most though, was the delight the women of the Republican convention got from her rude and condescending remarks about others. Gone instantly was that image of 'well mannered, stand aside, be respectful ladies'. All this time, it was thought that Democratic women were the loud, raucous and tough minded women.

I believe it signals a new awakening for Republican women who have been relegated to the background in the past.

It will also be interesting to see if core gospel values, like respect, humulity,generosity, and care for those with less than ourselves comes to the surface.

It was surely not even a tiny part of Sarah Palin's speech last night.

Posted by: JEAN | September 4, 2008 3:35 PM

I'm sorry, I do not look to Sojourners for this kind of article. I'm disappointed. Aside from all of the pros and cons regarding her family life, do ya really see this woman as president? Wow!

Posted by: Cynthia Mariano | September 4, 2008 3:36 PM

I disagree with the assertion that Palin's decision to run for office with 5 children, including a special needs infant, should be beyond scrutiny. Raising children is not just about quality time, quantity matters. You can't raise a child via cell phone. I do think eyebrows would be raised with respect to this issue if a similarly situated man were running for President or Vice President. If you want to devote that amount of time to your career, more power to you. However, should you bring a child into this world if you don't have time to raise it? Maybe she and her husband do, but it is a fair question. With respect to school age children, I think a potential candidate must balance the fact that they will necessarily be away from their children more with the advantages a child would receive by growing up in such a situation. Family values is part of Palin's campaign, and while you may disagree with my position, I think it is a fair issue to discuss.

Posted by: jen | September 4, 2008 3:38 PM

To Al N - Christians unite and stand up for Sarah Palin, no matter what your political stance. She's one of US -- a real, genuine born-again Christian!

It's people like you with the collective mind-think that will bring this country down. I know some pretty nasty, self-righteous, look-down-your-nose at others Christians. Being a Christian (which I am) does not make you a perfect person who knows everything! Look what the last 7 years have brought us! Mccain/Palin will bring us more of the same, and further down the road to ruin than we already are. Aren't you sick of the pandering?

Posted by: Irene | September 4, 2008 3:39 PM

All she did was just state the FACTS?

An ABC wire service story today shredded many of her anti-Obama and her resume-building statements to threads as half-truths and exaggerations. We all criticized the media after the run-up to the Iraq War that they did not do their job. Now they are supposed to be the bad guys for investigating a complete unknown for the second most powerful job in the world when McCain would be the oldest President EVER to take office? Yes, family matters and responsibilities should be off-limits, but the mainstream press only picked up on this pregnancy thing after the RNC made it public. (I do not count tabloids and blogs as the press because they cater to such a small "belonging group.") Besides, Obama himself made it perfectly clear that the matter should be off-limits. BTW, some polls are out: Palin came across as likable to many, sarcastic to others, but still the majority would not vote for her because of her experience; time will tell if she can change that. Frankly the more I listen to Obama reaching out reducing abortions, recognizing basic human rights of GLBT persons, common sense control of guns, making health care and education more available and more affordable, and the lifting up of those in poverty with a tax code that tries to implement a "living wage" for so many of the working poor, the more he sounds like Rev. Jim Wallis in God's Politics. I guess that's why I'm voting for him.
Peace!

Posted by: Dan V. | September 4, 2008 3:41 PM

In this election as in elections past, I continue to be baffled by the fact that in order to qualify for our nation's highest offices, you have to wake up on a brisk fall morning and feel that the day is best honored by killing some of God's creatures.

When John Kerry suited up and went out to hunt Canada Geese, I just about choked. "They mate for life, John!" I shouted at the TV.

Okay, so not everybody questions why killing should be a sport. Not even the pro-life party. But even if you want to say that it's fine if some take pleasure in killing things, I fail to see why such pleasure is a qualification for national office. Are moose such a threat to our national security? Will serving up camel burgers bring about peace in the Middle East? Will skill in moose dressing bring job security? Can you trade the hides to the mortgage company to keep your house? I don't get it.

Posted by: Anne | September 4, 2008 3:41 PM

'...people who are honestly wondering if she has the experience, depth and temperament to step into the Oval Office.'

She has more experience than Obama. She has run a city and state. I love it that the main line - big four are compairing the Rep's second in command to their 1st - Hello - is anyone thinking?

No - Obama will not say anything publically - but what will he say and support privately? We (some of us) know what took place to get him to the Senate from IL. We know what he believes about middle / rural America about guns and religion.

This election will be historical no matter who the American people put in the White House. I will stack Palin's resume against either of the Dem's canidates and McCain - that will be cool to see what he has to say tonight.

Harry - you 'can't stand' McCain - right back at you buddy!

Blessings to all!
.

Posted by: big guy | September 4, 2008 3:41 PM

I fault Palin's judgment. She knew about her teenage daughter's pregnancy and yet subjected her to media scrutiny of her sinful past. A mother protects her children; she does not expose them to ridicule. I also fault her judgment in delivering a speech in TX, taking an 8 hour flight to Alaska followed by over an hour's drive to a hospital to deliver her child AFTER her water broke. A mother protects the about to born child; she does not risk its life by making its imminent birth subject to political considerations. Very strange.

Posted by: Anne | September 4, 2008 3:41 PM

I have read that Sarah Palin believes that the war in Iraq is God's will and that the natural gas pipeline she has encouraged through Alaska is also God's will. God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to behold. I wonder how she can be "pro-life" and send her oldest child to war to potentially cause death to come to others (including the "pre-born") and himself. She and McCain and many others are "anti-abortion" not "pro-life."

Posted by: Gary | September 4, 2008 3:43 PM

what was missing on the governor's speech was a temperament of tolerance and compassion. what i mean is if she is a follower of christ as she claims to be why is the bulk of her message an attack on a fellow follower? the tone of our political landscape is harsh, mean spirited and without biblical witness. we are called to use our words to encourage and build each other up no matter our political bent, love your enemies and all that. i may sound idealistic but what i am still looking for is a leader who expresses the compassion and humility that any follower of christ should have, so i will remain on the watch for the person who has the courage and the faith to step into the political arena and not attack their opponent's character and life but to inspire me with what they see as the vision they have for this country.

Posted by: john wallis | September 4, 2008 3:43 PM

I thought Palin's speech was funny and inspiring. I think that after a week of her being attacked for ridiculous things that she pretty much had to come out in a "fighting mode". I thought the fact that she did it in a humorous way was great. I do not agree with her politics in all areas, and I do agree that there seem to be some exaggerations of her record as a tax cutter. (of course, I am sure none of the other candidates have any exaggerations of their records). Obama is a nice man who has referred in fairly condescending ways to Palin's tenure as mayor of Wasilly (he continued to "misprounounce" the name of the town on several occasions...coincidence? ). Joe Biden's first act as vice-president was to start attacking McCain and it has been openly talked about in the media and on some liberal blogs that that is one of the reasons he was chosen. So....for people to complain about what I thought were relatively minor comments on Palin's part is interesting. She tweaked Obama for appearing to be a little overly impressed with himself. I don't think that was bad at all. However, I hope that she moves rapidly to a stance of looking at the issues and staying off the other things. As far as her being a Pentecostal....she attends a non-Pentecostal church most of the time but reportedly attends an Assembly of God Church when she is in Juneau? I think criticism of that is out of line and comments like, "I guess she can speak the language of any country as a result" are mean spirited. Tell me which one of us attends a church that cannot be mocked in some way?

Posted by: Bill | September 4, 2008 3:45 PM

Condescending to whom? Rude to whom? The only reason this is read as condescending is because it has been framed (not incorrectly) as a rebuttal to the rude and condescending arguments from the left. She put them to bed.

But yes, like any good convention speech, it irritated that folks who have made up their mind to vote for the other guy. Within minutes of her nomination, his campaign made light of her mayoral experience, and its suddenly out of bounds to make light of Obama's role as a community organizer?

Whether or not you think the criticisms from each side were valid has everything to do with how you already felt about each side. I didn't think it was polite or fair for Obama to suggest that McCain stood by and watched people drown in New Orleans. The left loved that line. That's politics.

"Any shred of vote I had left to give him disappeared with his pick for the VP."

This pick wasn't about picking up the shreds. It was about appealing to those voters who at least reasonably likely to vote for him in the first place. John McCain isn't going to win over liberal or middle-left voters.

A middling, congenial speech in the face of pronounced criticism from the left would have demonstrated weakness. To do so in an effort to maybe reach out to someone who is 99.9% sure they are going to vote for Obama anyway would hurt the campaign immensely.

"He said his choice would be someone who could be president right now. She is emphatically not that candidate."

I disagree. But, by this logic, I could argue Democrats elevated politics above country by picking a guy on the top of the ticket who hasn't really done or accomplished anything. If Obama is elected, there won't even be a heartbeat between him and the presidency.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 4, 2008 3:47 PM

Thanks, Jim for bringing up yet again...it is the issues that need to be spotlighted. Each of us must make a list of the issues that we are passionate about, prioritize them and do the research to see where each candidate stands. Do not believe the media...get as close to the source as possible. It takes some work to be informed...and it is work well worth the time. Also, we need to realize that there is and will never be a perfect candidate (of human caliber)that is why the priority list is so important!

Posted by: Kim | September 4, 2008 3:48 PM

I disagree with the statement that a male candidate would not have received the criticisms involving family situations and the choice to run for high office. If you remember, John Edwards was criticized for running while his wife had cancer. These are similar, though not identical.

Posted by: C. G. Walden | September 4, 2008 3:49 PM

#1 Today, 09:05 AM
SherriMunnerlyn
Level 9
Level 8 Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,935

I sat and listened to the Republican pick for Vice President speak last night, and was appalled and horrified. I see the Jesus I know being converted into a warmongerer, with attempt after attempt made to link God and guns and war and God. It made me sick to my stomach, it was disgusting. Further, comments were made reflecting a complete disdain for human rights of prisoners in the war on terror. How can a person say they care about human life, that they have any respect for the value of human life, and support torture and war after war.

I then found a sermon of a preacher at the Vice Presidential candidate's former church, calling the members to enlist in wars, that God was calling them to go kill in wars. I cannot even begin to find adequate words to express my feelings about this, except to conclude they do not worship the God I worship and they do not know the Jesus I know. I do not know the God she follows. Jesus does not tell people to go kill, to go take human life, and that there is personal sacrifice for Christ in taking the human life of others in wars.

Here are the comments of a so-called Christian preacher calling his congregation to go fight in war for Christ, the preacher at the church the Vice Presidential candidate was raised in :

"What you see in a terrorist -- that's called the invisible enemy. There has always been an invisible enemy. What you see in Iraq, basically, is a manifestation of what's going on in this unseen world called the spirit world. ... We need to think like Jesus thinks. We are in a time and a season of war, and we need to think like that. We need to develop that instinct. We need to develop as believers the instinct that we are at war, and that war is contending for your faith. ... Jesus called us to die. You're worried about getting hurt? He's called us to die. Listen, you know we can't even follow him unless you are willing to give up your life. ... I believe that Jesus himself operated from that position of war mode. Everyone say "war mode." Now you say, wait a minute Ed, he's like the good shepherd, he's loving all the time and he's kind all the time. Oh yes he is -- but I also believe that he had a part of his thoughts that knew that he was in a war."

There is also supposed to be a speech she made at her former church, about God calling for the war in Iraq.

This was a prayer she made:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan"

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...2/1327574.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_123205.html

I have a problem in seeing any of the wars we are in as wars God is calling us to engage in, as wars God is calling Christians to go fight and take human life in. I am disgusted by this smearing and making a mockery of Jesus Christ, the way this so-called Christian Vice presidential candidate is doing.

This Republican melding together of their government and God is a match made in Hell, not Heaven. The goals of Satan are being sought, not the goals of Christ.

Sherri

Posted by: Sherri Munnerlyn | September 4, 2008 3:50 PM

For one who dismisses sex ed and promotes abstinence she is a prime example of Christian Right arrogance. Her high school daughter is about to get married and get into real parental and marriage respobsibilities at an age when most kids her age are looking forward to freedom and "getting out".

Posted by: Warren Dodge | September 4, 2008 3:51 PM

All day today, Rush Limbaugh has been screeching about Democrats and "libs" running scared after Palin's speech, fearing for their political lives, etc. etc. laugh chuckle ... Judging from this blog so far, that wouldn't - uh - quite seem to be the case.

Another point: As Christians, we can "prevail" on the issues alone if we stick to them and serve prophetically to focus people's attention on the important things. The religious finger-pointing and mockery on this blog is disturbing and puts us all in a bad light.

Posted by: Jeff | September 4, 2008 3:53 PM

"Sojourners" often gives me hope. McCain's VP pick does not. How could someone with such extremist views (and, yes, advocating for creationism in public schools, and ruling out all abortions even in cases of rape, incest and threat to the mother's life qualify as "extremist" in that they differ wildly from mainstream American views) be trusted to lead a secular democracy? Seriously. How could that sort of extremism accommodate freedom of religion, or separation of church and state? I, too, miss the McCain of '00 and cannot vote for the McCain of '08.

As for the alleged sexism of questioning her parenting, I'm a working mother and have faced tough choices, but I would never make the choice to expose a pregnant unwed teenager to international scrutiny, and Palin had to know that would happen. I hope it was not a calculated move on anyone's part, and I hope that girl and her child and its father get through this with more grace than Palin has shown.

Posted by: Leigh | September 4, 2008 3:54 PM

The value of a leader is in direct proportion to a leader's values. This election matters, not only because because of some hard realities like global warming, the economy, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties and poverty here and around the world, just to name just a few, but also because we are making a choice between two clearly distinct worldviews and sets of values. Sarah Palin has done us all a service by clearly showing the distinction between the world views and values. We need to get off personalities and focus on the world view and values of the candidates and each respective party as it relates to these hard realities. Campaigns are won and lost by how candidates relate to realities, through the worldview and values as they are seen in the voter's mind. Sarah Palin suceeded in connecting to a widly held worldview and set of values, a culture if you will. A worldview, that widly held, that is antithetical to our democracy. This election is about values!

Posted by: David Frenchak | September 4, 2008 3:55 PM

I wonder when this "hockey mom" actually had enough time to attend one of her child's hockey games....

Posted by: Mary | September 4, 2008 3:57 PM

Re comments by Elizabeth Mattingly

Last night's convention was filled beginning to end with attack and aggression, violence-tinged talk (against Democrats, against Islam, against the environment, you name it). Palin fits right in with her new crowd.

Posted by: Jeff | September 4, 2008 3:59 PM

I listened to Mrs. Palin's speech last night and thought of John McCain's many appearances and wondered - does anyone know if he has been assessed for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? He has a notorious temper which some have described as more like temper tantrums. Combine him with Sarah Barracuda and I''m not so sure I feel comfortable having either of them so near the "red" button. I believe in Jesus' message of peace, our call to be peacemakers, and here are two people: one, a card carrying member of the NRA and the other always referring to going after 'them' if it takes 100 years. That's not a 'double standard.' That's a concern that we are not headed for peacemaking but into more war. I was hoping for Hillary Clinton but when she didn't make it, I immediately supported Barack Obama. I don't want another four years of Bush clone McCain. I don't think he thought it through very well when he chose Mrs. Palin. I heard her speech and wondered "who wrote it?" That's why she disappeared for two days. She was practicing the speech! I wondered, if that had been Chelsea Clinton who turned up pregnant at 17, how would the country, how would the Republicans have reacted? Would they have been so forgiving, so accepting? There's a double standard, all right. I'm pro-life but I'm not a single issue voter. I'm also not a sheep. I hope others think it through better than what I've seen at the convention. That's so sad.

Posted by: Martha E. Lujan | September 4, 2008 4:02 PM

re: big guy | September 4, 2008 3:58 PM

BG I agree.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 4:03 PM

It seems to me contridictory to claim Christian identity and support cuts to the weakest memebers of our society--special needs children and so forth.

In reality it seem ideologically contridictory to claim Christian and a consumer capitalist.

Posted by: Ross | September 4, 2008 4:04 PM

When Potentiality is not Achieved.
Last night was another example of the shallowness of God talk. Self centred pharisaism was used passionately to attack and denigrate the attempts of community workers to work with the marginalized,forgotten and forsaken. Power and influence strategies permeated this pragmatic preaching. If it works it must be right. Bowing to the Great God ARWOD (American Republican Way of Death) the real God (Jahweh)was relegated to a place in the corner..not mentioned at all..and not included as the author of truth,justice and liberty. Prosperity Gospel proponents must have felt very superior with the continous reference: God wants you to to prosper with a strong bullying flavor mixed in. I had thought Mrs Palin's temporay insanity in forsaking the welfare of her daughter for the lust of power was temporary,but the public display of the smiling teenagers was an aphrodaisiac to the Evangelicals who couldn't get enough of the kool aid. Rationalization by the Christian Rock Stars (tv evangelists) has become epidemic and now everyone wants in on the "cheap grace". The reason that Barack Obama will win this November is that God has had enough of these self centred indulgent "sophists" who rent prophets for gain and despise any one who would offer a "cup of water in Jesus' Name". No reaching for feet washing towels by this crowd they have mastered the tossing of Sunday minutes at Jesus feet in their politically correct Churches.. God Have Mercy On Our Souls.

Posted by: Maurice | September 4, 2008 4:04 PM

Sarah Palin exercised a line item veto in the Alaska Legislature to cut funds for unwed teen mothers. Good thing her own daughter has a place to sleep.

Posted by: cynthia | September 4, 2008 4:05 PM

I have to disagree with Jim about the double standard for men and women, when he says,

"the suggestion that running for vice president with a 5-month-old special-needs child and a pregnant 17-year-old daughter should make her suspect as a mother is a blatant double standard that would not be applied to a male candidate."

I think I would question a man on this same issue. Men have also had to refuse promotions or jobs that took them out of town due to family circumstances. This is not a gender issue, but a question of priorities.
Of course such decisions are between the spouses and their God, but, as a voter, I have reservations about dividing time between a needy family and the second-most-consuming job in the country.

I was both impressed and outraged by Sarah Palin's Acceptance Speech. As oratory, it was effective, but it was more sarcastic and filled with innunendo than I can respect, even in a partisan speech. Truth can be subjective, but when it is ruthlessly twisted for political gain, I question the ethics of the speaker.

Posted by: Bill Tucker | September 4, 2008 4:06 PM

I somewhat disagree that we shouldn't focus on Palin's responsibilities or judgment as a parent. Or McCain's judgment for choosing her in the first place. For someone who is reportedly so focused on Family Values (in a Dobsonian way I presume), she should have had the wisdom to "just say no" to the offer. She has 5 children, one of which has Down's syndrome, and another who will be a new mama. If supporting her pregnant daughter doesn't take enough of her time, caring for a Down's child certainly will. My nephew has Down's syndrome. He is 12 with the mentality of a 3-year old. It's like raising 2 and sometimes 3 children for his parents.
I guess narcissism and ego trump family values any day.

Posted by: farmerpat | September 4, 2008 4:07 PM

Her speech was vitriolic, short on substance, smart alec, and very un-christian if you ask me. The media was fawning all over her because they have to. What about what Peggy Noonan said when she thought the microphones were off-that it was over when McCain picked her. Palin is an extremist plain and simple. My sister is a hardcore liberal that stays home with her children. Palin is fair game in regards to her children and her not being with them, maybe the husband is home with the kids, if that is true then it is not as bad, but if neither one of them is home with them and her other kids are watching her children--that is wrong. If your going to have five children you should be home with them when they are in middle school and under, period.

Posted by: shawn olson | September 4, 2008 4:08 PM

As a Christian and as a human being who believes in the sanctity of all human life and that it is time to beat the weapons of war created out of our inability to love one another and to understand what God means, as concerns justice, I tremble at the idea of someone who believes that war is blessed by God. Those who attack us also think that their cause is ordained by God. Peace is ordained by the Jesus I know. I am starting, regrettably, to think of people who agree with Sarah Palin on this point as anti Christian and modern day heretics. I cannot imagine wanting to possibly put Palin's finger on the "N" button.

Posted by: Rev. Robert Evans II | September 4, 2008 4:08 PM

Jim, are you aware of the more troubling aspects of the AOG; doctrines and affiliations? If we are to assume Palin is sincere in her Dominionist faith, then she will be perjuring herself (and worse) if she swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Here's some impressive foundations for that assertion.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 4, 2008 4:10 PM

Obama has no executive experience, no leadership experience at all, and he has added Biden because he has no foreign affairs experience.

Joe Biden is six years younger than McCain, and he has had two brain hemhorages.

So, ask yourselves: What will happen to America if we are embroiled in a desperate foreign affairs mess or a terrorist attack, and (God forbid) Joe Biden is incapacitated through illness or death.

Ya'll are so worried about McCain, with no regard for the inexperienced Obama and his fairly old choice to be there in case America has a foreign affairs crisis (which we all know, we will have, eventually).

I think Americans need to get beyond party and rhetoric and honestly look at the most liberal, most inexperienced candidate in American history and his old VP choice.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 4, 2008 4:11 PM

If your going to have five children you should be home with them when they are in middle school and under, period.
Posted by: shawn olson | September 4, 2008 4:08 PM
-----------
Thanks for the edict. I'm glad no one with similar views is on the ticket on either side. Why do liberals insist on legislating personal behavior and choices in this manner?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 4:13 PM

You don't need to be snarky to me Peter S. But you could try answering the questions I posed about Palin. Come on, give it a shot.

Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 4:13 PM

I felt the whole atmosphere of the convention was arrogant, sarcastic, condescending and mean-spirited. I watched and listened, as much as I could to Guiliani and wow, he was absolutely disgusting. Is he the model of Republican politics? And then Gov. Palin, I believe, showed very little graciousness or balance. I felt that more than I've seen with the Republican convention, the DNC speakers, particularly Biden and Obama, were able to point out the good points about McCain without reservation, and then moved to where they disagreed. Their pointed remarks pale in comparison to the mean-spirited remarks I've heard. If you don't think Obama is ready, then don't vote for him. But don't say he's NOT a Christian or intelligent just because you don't agree with his stances.

Also, when Palin applauded women who came before her, how come she didn't mention Shirley Chisholm?! Is it possible she doesn't know about her or does she not think her contribution to women, all women, in politics is insignificant?! In either case, it's sad. Do her policies over look, neglect people or are ignorant of people of color too??

Posted by: Rita | September 4, 2008 4:15 PM

I liked Jim's column for the most part.
Maydell:
....visited by "my local Assembly of God church and have been told that I am not a Christian because I am Catholic. "
I am sorry to hear of your experience. That is NOT a tenet of the Assemblies of God. No one is, or isn't, a Christian
by virtue of their denomination. The Assemblies
of God is a far more diverse group than your limited experience, and the mocking, divisive
comments of Sister Marie, would indicate. Where is YOUR tolerance, Sister?
Also, you clearly overlooked what's available on YouTube from Dayton, OH(link at end), where Governor Palin was forthright and honest in her praise of both Hilary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.

Al N,
"Even the comment about the Greek pillars was rude and not needed.
People in Denver worked hard to put that stadium together ...[because they were paid to do so]
and frankly, it didn't even look Greek to me! Why the Republicans made fun of that is beyond me."
Why?
The backdrop was pretentious and shallow, like the Hollywood values in the Democratic platform.
Democrats, and America, deserve better than a defense of "sex, Hollywood style" When Al Gore was VP, his wife had the guts to criticize
foul Hollywood lyrics. Where is that kind of Democrat today? Michelle Obama condescends to the millions of us who have denied her "don't go into the private sector" advice. Now THAT's condescending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg0darQB7r4
(It's a long clip. The comments about her forrunners and the 18 million cracks is at about 15 minutes in)

Blessings,
Witness for Peace
"Shalom",
the reign of God's good laws

Posted by: Winess for Peace | September 4, 2008 4:18 PM

Palin is charming and charismatic, and her speech was filled with wit -- a dream come true for many republicans, especially those who believe (this is true) that republican women are prettier than democrat women. Despite her gift of speaking, though, there were moments I felt nauseated by that all-too-familiar smugness that hearkens unto today's administration. That wink-wink thing is a giant red flag for me.

Despite having just given my own, I am interested in facts, not opinions. To the people who mentioned (above) her cutting of funding for special needs children and at-risk pregnant teenagers, could you please provide some factual statistics?

Posted by: mh | September 4, 2008 4:19 PM

Had McCain selected an experienced VP candidate, he had my vote.
Had Hillary won her party's nomination, she would now have my vote, perhaps even if she had picked Obama as VP to give him some years of preparation for another run.

Right now, I'm thinking about staying home or trying to figure out how to vote a split ticket (McCain/Biden) and leaving the younger, less experienced pair to gain some experience over the next 8 years before they try to become our nation's leaders.

I wouldn't condemn her speech on content any more than the slams Obama put on McCain. At least she was the VP candidate who historically, right or wrong, is assigned that dubious task. And the fact that Obama recognized McCain's heroism gains him 0. No one in their political right mind would have missed the chance to praise him and then say "but that doesn't make him a good President." Compliments followed by "but" are grudging acknowledgements, not complements.

Posted by: Keith | September 4, 2008 4:20 PM

I do not think it is appropriate to go after Gov. Palin on family issues. However, some of her actions as Governor should be scrutinized. I was very disappointed and frustrated with her acceptance speech, which was not even written by her. Her sneering non-verbals and her attacks on Barack Obama which were not on issues but on personal background were inexcusable. I am also deeply concerned that the fear-mongering and seeming hateful rhetoric will do our country no good. I cannot even imagine Gov. Palin as President if something should happen to an aging John McCain.

Posted by: Rev. Paul Tidemann | September 4, 2008 4:21 PM

Jim's article and the resulting comments definitely reveal the left-leaning bias here. For a "faith-based" forum, I guess I expected more of a focus on Christ than Obama.

As for Palin, I think Jim (and the rest of our culture) actually misunderstand Biblical gender roles. Man and woman are equal in value but distinct in role. Man was given the responsibility to sacrificially lead like Christ. Woman was created to give and nurture life while submitting in joyful gratitude to man as the Church does to Christ. This is why Palin's gender, motherhood, etc. matter.

Posted by: Matt | September 4, 2008 4:25 PM

The rest of the election is not the "real work"... the real work is already done. We already know that Palin is anti-gay, anti-environment, and self-serving and power-hungry. Anything that comes from here on out is just spin and politicking. In other words, from now on, they'll just be lying.

I applaud your diplomatic stance here, but I really don't see any reason to have any patience or to give any more time to analyzing the rhetoric of these people. It's over, in my mind.

Posted by: Andrew | September 4, 2008 4:26 PM

Energized the Republicans? She energized me. I went and donated money to Barack Obama's campaign.

By the way, I am surprised that Republicans are accusing Democrats of being sexist. Their delegates are wearing buttons that say "Hottest VP from the coolest state" and "Hoosiers for the hot chick". That's sexist.

Posted by: Jenny | September 4, 2008 4:27 PM

Thank you Sarah!!
Goodbye girlymen, Harvey milktoast
emotionally week Emergent "men"
Jesus is the King of Kings.
Christians look up, quit being
beat down by Jim Wallis, McLaren
Seay, Miller.

Posted by: nick | September 4, 2008 4:28 PM

As conservative columnist Steve Chapman wrote in the Chicago Tribune,

Palin has another, more complicated task that this speech postponed: reaching out to millions of people who are honestly wondering if she has the experience, depth and temperament to step into the Oval Office. What many of those Americans need to see are qualities like judgment, wisdom, tolerance and flexibility. Those traits were conspicuous by their absence tonight.

Same comment applies to Obama.

Pot calling kettle black.

Posted by: Peter | September 4, 2008 4:31 PM

Posted by: J. Young | September 4, 2008 4:09 PM

Where do you live? My brother lives in AK and he does not have cable or satillite and only reads on-line.

one issue...'...take the polar bears off the endangered species...'

There are more Polar Bears in AK today than there were in the mid 60's - they are OK, don't worry.

Blessings to all!
.

Posted by: big guy | September 4, 2008 4:32 PM

There was nothing Christian about that speech. Whatever happened to the message of the Prince of Peace?

Republicans and others have been attacking Barack Obama ruthlessly for months accusing him of being Muslim, personally ambitious, not putting the country before himself, etc., etc.

That was shameful last night; such pride! Christians wake up!

Posted by: David Clapp | September 4, 2008 4:32 PM

I too thought it was unfair to bring up the issue about her daughter, many very good families have had to deal with these issues. However, when her nomination was announced the "right" was very quick to point out how "pro-life" she was because she had a "special needs" child. The right opened the door to the family issue, and as soon as they thought the tide might turn against them they suddenly said family is "off limits". You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: tom | September 4, 2008 4:35 PM

In my view, "family values" don't count when anyone - man or woman - abandon young children or children with handicaps to run for a demanding polical office. They are also not in play when a parent is so ambitious that they will subject a daughter to nationwide publicity over the fact that she is an unmarried pregnant teenager.

Posted by: Angus | September 4, 2008 4:38 PM

To me, she came across as smug. I didn't see anything particularly Christian about her speech, and she lied about Obama and taxes. In his speech at the Democratic Convention on Thursday, he pledged to lower them.

Where is her concern for the God-given environment?

And if she was truly pro-life, she'd have to be opposed to executions and to war. No one who is concerned about your life only up until you're born can truly claim to be pro-life.

Posted by: Carol Grizzard | September 4, 2008 4:39 PM

I disagree that questoning Sarah Palins family values when she is running for one of the most powerful jobs in the world is unfair. She has portrayed herself as a family first person; however, she simply cannot be the Mom to a family of 5 and learn the VP job at the same time. There is a lot of travel and overtime with that job. Sarah is turning her back on her family so portraying herself as Mom of the year is outrageous. The other candidates have older children or have a full time spouse minding the household. Will Tod by a stay at home Dad to care for that small baby with speical needs? Sarah is very intelligent, a great speaker and very ambitious. We need to know this.

Posted by: Bev | September 4, 2008 4:41 PM

Posted by: tom | September 4, 2008 4:35 PM

The right opened the door to the family issue, and as soon as they thought the tide might turn against them they suddenly said family is "off limits". You can't have it both ways.

I disagree - family is still an important issue. So - the VP canidates daughter is pregnant. She is keeping the baby and I believe that she is engaged. The press is making a big deal about this one and it is wrong. But no one is hurt here or going to get hurt.

Gore's son is picked up on a DUI the night before that convention and the big four and others mainline media groups totally ignored it. He could have died from an accident or too much booze or worse. He could have killed someone. Thank you Lord that did not happen but the big four will never pass up a chance to dis a conservative or their family.

Level ground is all that we want.

Blessings to all!
.

Posted by: big guy | September 4, 2008 4:43 PM

We have had 8 years of divisive "my way or the highway" politics. I do not believe that a barracuda as second in command will do much to unite this country, no matter how many times she invokes the term "God's will".
I am praying for our country!

Posted by: Teena | September 4, 2008 4:48 PM

Though likeable, I found her speech to be mean-spirited, full of personal jabs, and divisive. But, she wants the base and I am not a part of the base, so she does not want me.

Thank God, Jesus wants us all. By the way, isn't that the Christian way?

Posted by: TaJuan | September 4, 2008 4:49 PM

"So the intense media focus on the new Republican vice-presidential nominee was to be expected. But some of it has been inappropriate, especially when reporters go after the Palin family's choices."

------------

While I agree that its a tragedy that the media spotlight has fallen on Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Sarah Palin has brought this onto herself. From the press release that Palin's staff put out, she and her husband said, "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."

She fully backs the choice of her own child in keeping the baby, yet as a public policy, wants to take away that right from every other 17-year-old in the country who finds herself in similar circumstances. Sarah Palin wants to take the decision out of the hands of the mother and put it in the hands of government.

So there's a huge disconnect here, much in the same way that Cheney is supportive of his lesbian daughter yet publicly supports bans on gay marriage and gay rights in general. Because of their public policy stances, their private lives, when there's obvious contradictions or outright double standards and hypocrisy, become fair game.

Of course journalists have to be careful not to go after the daughter, but they can't give Palin a free pass on this. Further, she's asking journalists to not report on the story of her daughter, yet she trots out her other kids, telling the country that her son is deploying to Iraq, as though she wants that story to be told by the media. She can't have it both ways.

Posted by: James Davies | September 4, 2008 4:53 PM

"Woman was created to give and nurture life while submitting in joyful gratitude to man as the Church does to Christ. This is why Palin's gender, motherhood, etc. matter."

Of what relevance is the call to submission within marriage to her office as Vice President?

"What love of family, good sense, or values do the Palin family hold sacred? The possibility of winning the power of the vice presidency overshadows all! Shame on both parents. "

What was she supposed to do? Find a sitter? Families, including babies and children, always take part in these festivities. If they had stashed Bristol and Trig at a hotel somewhere, I'd be reading criticisms of how Palin is ashamed of them.

Are you folks this unaware of their own biases?

We have here a complaint that she has a speechwriter. So do Obama and Biden, and just about everybody who has reached this level. She had what, five days to come up with a speech? Do you think anyone running for VP sits down and bangs out a speech, unaided, in five days?

We have the accusation that she is inexperienced, and then also the claim that one cannot cite Obama's lack of experience, because to do so would highlight McCain's lack of experience.

We have outrage that Palin criticized Obama's personal background, when his campaign did so within nanoseconds of her nomination.

Some are concerned that Palin's family need her right now, and so they will vote for Obama, out of concern for her family, even though Obama is the father of two daughters.

We hear calls to discuss the issues, but all I see hear is an attack on Palin for being impolite. If you want to delve into the issues, by all means do so.

The only person among the last 50 or so commenters who doesn't have a horse in this race is Keith, who saw negativity on both sides. He saw it because it was present. It was present because negativity wins elections, and it is hardly the invention of the Republican party.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 4, 2008 4:57 PM

You don't need to be snarky to me Peter S. But you could try answering the questions I posed about Palin. Come on, give it a shot.
Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 4:13 PM
------
No (with all due respect), you please 'give it a shot' my request to try to understand conservatives without your 'snarky' "LOL" comments.

To answer your questions:
re: Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 3:17 PM

""How does Palin have more experience than Obama?""
Obama has no executive experience (where the buck stops with him). Senator (State & Fed) are critics and voters and committee members. They handle no crisis alone and are able to vote "present" to cop out of an issue. Obama's presidential campaign does not count either.

""What else did Obama do in addition to being a "community organizer?" Is that really all he has done in his career?""
Besides the short time he has been in the senate which he authored no legislation, YES that is all. He has written TWO memoirs, and was an adjunct law professor. His greatest accomplishment is truly beating Hillary, but I would not count that as leadership experience. Even Hillary and Biden said Obama is not qualified for Pres. Now that back him out of obligation (or gratitude for Biden).

""How do you feel about the title "President Palin"? Do you really think she is prepared to be president? If so, explain why. How will she do on the national level? On the international level? What credentials and experiences does she have to support your idea that she would be able to do well as president?""
S, there is a lot here to answer (your Qs), but I actually feel better about her than I do about McCain. And I would actually feel better with her on the top of the ticket because she is more conservative [i know you all cringe]. With her on the bottom is a blessing because she can understudy McCain and Run when his time is up. I was concerned about McC's age with no one to take the conservative torch, but now I am totally excited about the future of the GOP. Between her and Bobby Jindal I feel that we have a real future. Her record of reform in Alaska against the GOP is a huge plus for her on the national level. I think she will quickly come up to speed internationally.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 5:00 PM

You lost me with the first paragraph. That's exactly the standard to which I would hold a male candidate! I question Governor Palin's family values and her ability to convey those values to her children. I also found her to be rude and condescending. Her attitude is not one of conciliation and we don't need a Queen to replace the current King in the White House. She seems to have no respect for American principles of freedom and civil rights. She is not a patriot in my book and therefore dangerous to my country.

Posted by: Mary G | September 4, 2008 5:00 PM

"Maybe someone needs to remind Sarah Palin that Jesus Christ was a community organizer, and Pontius Pilate was a governor."

Actually, Jesus was a religious teacher. And unlike Pilate, Palin was elected by the people of her state. That's a difference worth noting.

"That's right, Palin skewered Obama for trying to help unemployed Chicago ironworkers!"

Close. Palin skewered Obama for failing to actually improve conditions for unemployed Chicago ironworkers.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 4, 2008 5:01 PM

1)I judge that Obama will seek seasoned non-dogmatic advisors from a range of venues in our nation. I am convinced he ia not an ideologue, but has demonstrated he is capable of scrutinizing and weighing issues and crises, and I 'm certain he will listen carefully to a range of experienced resources. 2) In my view there is no evidence that he will erupt into angry outbursts, then backtrack and remorsefully apologize later to the person who bore the brunt, or erupt and then remember the ill will a long time. 3) Anyway, I wonder if, having come this close to electing a man who in many ways belongs to a wider view of the world than many of our officials, and having let the world see us grappling with and then choosing him to run, I wonder what the sense will be across the nations and sects of the world if he ultimately is not chosen to be the President? If we instead elect a man who has clearly been an ideologue, answering to those who cling to the dogma of the ideology, a man who has shown repeated evidence of outbursts I referenced in my 2) up above, especially when questioned or pressed or, perhaps, disagreed with, and whose readiness to react has been widely considered to be too precipitous -- who seems comfortable talking about military interventions at the top of his list. Americans then, would be understood to be -- who? I am troubled by this thought. I pray deeply this can be avoided, for the sake of our nations, and for the movements of hope countering extremists on this planet.

Posted by: Amy D | September 4, 2008 5:01 PM

There are some who obviously will be excited by her "bulldog" tone and life story. My guess is this will be a stroke of political brilliance. Many evangelical will be propelled by the unfortunate personal attacks on her family and the media backlash. How quickly some Christians want to see themselves victimized and sharing the cross of Christ. Too bad the identity of those who are the truly crucified, the poor, unwanted immigrants, and our own mother earth will go unnoticed. I have yet to hear anything from her to indicate that she has her heart with them and a commitment to them.
I also thought it audacious that she would dare to speak about the inexperience of Obama, given her own limited knowledge, lack of experience, lack of a passport. We think with our gut in this country and by-pass the head. I pray the truth wins out on this one - if it does, it will be an act of God's grace.

Posted by: Allen | September 4, 2008 5:02 PM

Sister Marie,
I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on your comment about the Palin's connection to the Assemblies of God. It seems as if you made a bigoted statement for the sake of attempting to be humorous, please clarify if this is not true.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | September 4, 2008 5:03 PM

Family values are more than a single issue...I feel sorry for the special needs baby who has been paraded in front of thousands of people when it should have been home in bed. I feel sorry for the young teenage who wasn't warned that her mother would be throwing her to the wolves when she accepted the VP nomination. I feel sorry for the young teen aged boy whose Face Book account indicates that he doesn't want children, then is "forced" to be paraded in front of thousands of people while "doing the right thing."

In addition, at no time did I see Sarah Palin hold, fondle, or acknowledge (except in her efforts to show her self the poster child of the Conservative Right) her baby.

Posted by: angie | September 4, 2008 5:06 PM

I couldnt sleep after listening to Palin last night She mentioned nothing about trillions of dollars in debt and she has no track record of fiscal responsibility. Its not about decisions its about what kind of decisions and who and how they affect.

Both parents worked for the public schools and her husband has a very good high paying union job. She doesnt have a clue what is like to worry if there will be a paycheck next month or about health insurance. That explains what she didnt mention wages and health insurance. Anyone notice when she tried to brag that her husband belonged to a union that the applause was very minimal?

Every one in Alaska, if they work, make big money. Can she bring those pay scales to the lower 48 and is she going to suggest that Wal Mart employees unionize and get benefits like her husband?

She has never had to be too concerned about taxes and the oil in Alaska takes care of most of that problem. The rest of the states are not so lucky.

The biggest social problem she has had to concern herself with is a drunken brawl in the saloon. Has she ever been to a big city and walked in the streets of a poverty neighborhood?

Why dont these Republicans ever quote Eisenhower and his industrial military complex speech and he was a General which is way above McCains rank. They all seem to want to quote and pretend they can relate to succesful Democrats

She made a big deal out of relating to the terrorists as being Islamic. What a way to win friends and influence people. So much for people skills and diplomacy. With her talking and Mc Cain shooting we are all doomed.

Posted by: Dennis A | September 4, 2008 5:13 PM

JameM,
Predictable.
Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | September 4, 2008 5:15 PM

Palin says the Iraq war is a "task that is from God" and called a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in Alaska "God's will."

This is weak theology and will inevitably give Christians a bad name...

Posted by: Aimee Klark | September 4, 2008 5:17 PM

As I listened to Gov. Palin's speech last night, I kept expecting Karl Rove to whisper more cues from the stage. It was so discouraging to see a historic pick for women wasted on a sharp tongued attack, launched with mostly untrue statements. If the extreme right wing of the Republican party is so pleased with her speech, it should be a LOUD message to America that they truly have NO concern for the poor, uninsured, publicly educated, elderly, etc..... of this country. We heard NO more about her "qualifications" and only mean spirited inaccurate rhetoric. If they were counting on her to sway Hillary voters, I think they have seriously miscalculated the needs of this country. Today's blogs also show that many Independent Men were turned off by her shrill attacks, and disappointed that she had no real plan to offer, just the SAME OLD PERSONAL ATTACKS made famous by GWB and Company!!

Posted by: Deborah Cooper | September 4, 2008 5:18 PM

If my kids talked the way she did last night, I'd send them to their rooms. How's THAT for family values?

You can't be a positive role model by being that deeply negative.

Posted by: Paul | September 4, 2008 5:21 PM

A number of posts have talked about "mean spirited" and "I don't want to be a Christian like that."
I can't argue with your feelings, and it points out the grave danger of Christian involvement in politics. A month or so ago, Jim Wallis hosted a debate on whether Christians should be so involved,
and started out saying "no" but ended up saying "it's OK if they are liberal Democrats" like himself! I attribute this to inner conflict rather than dishonesty, as Rev. Wallis
is a wonderful Christian, and helped me to connect my beliefs to my behavior. Still, it remains a dilemma for me as well. How does one deliver "one liners" the media will pick up without opening oneself to criticism? How is Governor Palin to defend her record? It is absurd to pronounce her unqualified when neither obama nor Biden has any executive experience at all. Nor do they have private sector experience, with responsibility for performance. A "community organizer" is a difficult job, but where's the accountability? If something good happens, you can take credit. Otherwise, blame the government for not giving you more money, or perhaps the evil corporations.
Apparently Obama never thought to blame the Supreme Court for weakening the influence of religion in Chicago's neighborhoods, and making it extraordinarily difficult to punish criminals who prey on their black neighbors. He still doesn't get it.
Governor Palin has a clear sense of right and wrong, and asks to be held accountable. I think that's a good start, but it won't please everyone, especially the exceedingly liberal bunch here at SojoNet.
Blessings,
Witness for Peace
"Shalom" the reign of God and his good, loving laws
P.S. Jesus was NOT a community organizer, and Pilate was not elected. Jesus was the Son of God, and his death a pointless tragedy unless he was EXACTLY who he claimed to be.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 4, 2008 5:25 PM

"As I listened to Gov. Palin's speech last night, I kept expecting Karl Rove to whisper more cues from the stage."

-- Deborah Cooper

(Makes a clawing gesture and says "Rrowr!")

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 4, 2008 5:33 PM

continued...

""What else did Obama do in addition to being a "community organizer?" Is that really all he has done in his career?""
Besides the short time he has been in the senate which he authored no legislation, YES that is all. He has written TWO memoirs, and was an adjunct law professor. His greatest accomplishment is truly beating Hillary, but I would not count that as leadership experience. Even Hillary and Biden said Obama is not qualified for Pres. Now that back him out of obligation (or gratitude for Biden).

""How do you feel about the title "President Palin"? Do you really think she is prepared to be president? If so, explain why. How will she do on the national level? On the international level? What credentials and experiences does she have to support your idea that she would be able to do well as president?""
S, there is a lot here to answer (your Qs), but I actually feel better about her than I do about McCain. And I would actually feel better with her on the top of the ticket because she is more conservative [i know you all cringe]. With her on the bottom is a blessing because she can understudy McCain and Run when his time is up. I was concerned about McC's age with no one to take the conservative torch, but now I am totally excited about the future of the GOP. Between her and Bobby Jindal I feel that we have a real future. Her record of reform in Alaska against the GOP is a huge plus for her on the national level. I think she will quickly come up to speed internationally.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 5:34 PM

continued...

""What else did Obama do in addition to being a "community organizer?" Is that really all he has done in his career?""
Besides the short time he has been in the senate which he authored no legislation, YES that is all. He has written TWO memoirs, and was an adjunct law professor. His greatest accomplishment is truly beating Hillary, but I would not count that as leadership experience. Even Hillary and Biden said Obama is not qualified for Pres. Now that back him out of obligation (or gratitude for Biden).

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 5:35 PM

After all of Palin's ranting, done any fact checking? I was given an article that I found interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check

Can anyone quote either Biden or Obama making a sarcastic or personal attack against Palin? Even today, after her speech?

When did sarcasm and junior high mocking become a "family value"?

Talk about rhetoric without substance. Quite disappointing.

Experience? What's her educational training? 5 colleges in 6 years?

I guess Harvard education, grass roots work to get thousands registered to vote, teaching constitutional law, 8 years in state senate, and 4 in U.S. senate leaves one less qualified than a "hockey mom" with city council experience, mayor, and a year-and-a-half of governor of the 47th largest state.

Posted by: Steve | September 4, 2008 5:42 PM

I was amazed at Palin's ridicule of Obama's background in community organizing, clearly demonstrating that she does not know the power, importance, or history of this kind of work. Without early community organizing by women's rights activists (many of them Christians) a century ago, Palin would not have the right to vote, much less run for public office. Without some form of community organizing there would be no PTA for her to have served, and children in America would still be working in sweatshops. By choosing to identify herself as a pit bull with lipstick, Palin reinforces some of the worst stereotypes about women in leadership, thereby undercutting her own cause.

Posted by: Elaine | September 4, 2008 5:44 PM

Obama has no executive experience (where the buck stops with him). Senator (State & Fed) are critics and voters and committee members. They handle no crisis alone and are able to vote "present" to cop out of an issue. Obama's presidential campaign does not count either.

And McCain has any more?

Posted by: Rick | September 4, 2008 5:48 PM

re: Darcie L. | September 4, 2008 5:44 PM

Darcie, you had me until: "hate-filled, bigotted, dishonest rhetoric of Palin's speech..."

Isn't that a bit of the same?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 5:54 PM

It's amazing how many times truth is classified as rude. Even if I were to grant her as being unqualified for the job, which I don't, I would rather vote for a ticket that has a qualified president and an unqualified vice president than an unqualified president and a qualified vice. Can anyone point to anything that Sen. Obama has done that qualifies him to be the president at this time in our Nation's history? He's a great speaker and he has a lot of charisma, but qualified to be president? I don't think so!!

Posted by: John | September 4, 2008 5:56 PM

Jim, while I agree that most people would not say that a man should think again about his family responsibilities before running for office, that doesn't mean that it isn't true that she should do that! Is it a sexist comment to say that she shouldn't be running? Perhaps, at least if you wouldn't say the same thing to a man? But does that make it any less accurate? Not at all. The problem with the feminist movement is that as women move more and more from the private realm to the public realm, we find no complimentary migration from the public realm to the private realm for men. How someone can promote "family values" while having no one at home to care for the family bewilders me. Call sexism when you see it, but also challenge the valuing of work over family.

I have lived with folks with disabilities and cared for them, and it takes a lot of time. They will have a whole lot of medical appointments in the months ahead and they will need to assist this child much more than their other children. Plus, her daughter is about to have a baby, marry, and have a family of her own. This is a lot for a parent (mother or father) to deal with.

I am all for feminism, but not when we all seek "individual freedom" at the expense of the relational ties that exist (and that in her case, she brought into the world with her husband). Pursuing her freedom to have these children now gives her much responsibility. The downfall of the feminist movement will be when it divolves into the rampant individualism from which most of our society suffers.

Posted by: Second Guesser | September 4, 2008 6:00 PM

Can someone tell me...Has Jim done an article entitled "Beyond Obama's Personality"?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 6:00 PM

To say that a woman has every bit as much right as a man to have a career or to be gainfully employed can hardly be disputed, except that when both a man and a woman who are parents work outside the home, no one is left to care for the children.

Of course they can hire a nanny. Somehow that makes me think of Jesus' story of the Good Shepherd and the hireling. A nanny just doesn't cut it. A nanny is not a parent and doesn't offer the same nurturance as a parent. As a father who househusbanded for several years and a family counselor, I believe I know whereof I speak. I fear that corporations have frightened us into doubling their workforce and lowering wages for hardworking Americans; they've done it by convincing us that, "you can't make it on one income anymore". We could if that income were a decent living wage.

Posted by: JAY CARRIGAN | September 4, 2008 6:02 PM

I was deeply disappointed to hear such unChrist-like rhetoric coming from all the speakers last night. I disagree with Jim Wallis. While I am all for women's rights and equality, I find it very hard to imagine having a pregnant 17 year old daughter and a 5 month old baby with special needs, and wanting to run for VP. That is certainly not in line with MY family values.

And speaking of family values, why does John McCain get a free ride for having "cheated numerous times" on his wife and then finding someone 17years younger, gets a marriage license even before his divorce is final! Again, not in line with MY family values.

Cindy McCain stole drugs from a charity??!!!
Imagine the field day that would have caused if it had been Michele Obama? So the hypocrisy, sarcasm, lack of care for the earth and all her people, the hatred and war mongering make me want to run as far from the "right" as I can get.

Posted by: Mary R | September 4, 2008 6:03 PM

re: Posted by: Joe Allen | September 4, 2008 6:00 PM

Joe: AMEN BROTHER I AGREE!!

This notion that the US government should be conducting Jesus ministry to the poor at the forced participation of tax payers is appalling.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 6:05 PM

I found Ms. Palin's speech appalling, especially since most of it was written for her by McCain staff people. Although I am now a pensioner and of little use to folks like you who need money and lots of it, I showed my disgust at what took place in St. Paul last night by going on-line today and giving Obama some money. For those of you who think she is God's gift to our nation, read the Huffington Post article of two days ago about her pastor and her religious beliefs. I don't want to hear anyone belly-aching about Jeremiah Wright after that. If ever had any doubts about whether we have a choice, they were dispelled between 10 pm and 11 last night.

Posted by: Richard Pierard | September 4, 2008 6:07 PM

I fall into the category of those who say that a woman who has an infant (with or without special needs) and a teenager who is in a crisis (and a pregnant teen is a teen with a crisis, however it is handled)should not be a heartbeat away from the highest office in the country. Where I might differ from others is that I would apply the same standard to her husband - the Palin family has way too much on it's plate right now to take on this challenge.
I would also like to comment that she took her attack on Obama to less than accurate lengths. She presented Obama's tax plan as raising taxes on everyone and that is blatantly not true. He has said that the only taxes he would raise are those of the wealthiest in the country. Also, her statement about rejecting the ear-marked money for the "bridge to nowhere" was misleading. NPR reported this a.m. that the bridge project was cancelled, but the money stayed in Alaska.

Posted by: Susan | September 4, 2008 6:09 PM

The speach is below, word for word this line is the one that everyone pulls as mean: I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I think a case can be made that the democrats started the discussion by belittling her work as a small town mayor. However, if I give you the fact that the line above was over the top mean, please help me out with what else in here is mean. You may disagree with her positions or her compare and contrast, but that is what the debates are for.

I am at a loss as to what else in there is mean, maybe someone can help me.

Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered for the nomination for vice president of the United States ...

I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.

I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election ... against confident opponents ... at a crucial hour for our country.

And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions ... and met far graver challenges ... and knows how tough fights are won — the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.

It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.

With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost — there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.

But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.

They overlooked the caliber of the man himself — the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.

And maybe that's because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.

Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.

He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.

Our son Track is 19.

And one week from tomorrow — September 11th — he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.

My nephew Kasey also enlisted, and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.

My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five children.

In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between — my strong and kindhearted daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper.

And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.

That's how it is with us.

Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.

Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.

And children with special needs inspire a special love.

To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.

I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.

He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.

Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.

We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy. My Mom and Dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.

And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.

My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and haberdasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.

A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

I grew up with those people.

They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.

They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.

I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.

When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment.

And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion — I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.

Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.

The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.

No one expects us to agree on everything.

But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.

I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good ol' boys network.

Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.

But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.

And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.

I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.

That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.

I also drive myself to work.

And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef — although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending — by request if possible and by veto if necessary.

Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest — and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.

Our state budget is under control.

We have a surplus.

And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged — directly to the people of Alaska.

And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.

As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.

And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.

The stakes for our nation could not be higher.

When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.

And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.

Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems — as if we all didn't know that already.

But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more new-clear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.

We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.

Maybe you have, too.

We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.

And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much ... he promises more.

Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business — like millions of others who run small businesses.

How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.

How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.

In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.

And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.

They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.

Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.

And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Senator McCain's record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency — from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.

Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd.

He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.

A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.

He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man. Clearly what the Majority Leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.

And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely.

There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their country.

It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.

But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.

It's the journey of an upright and honorable man — the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country, only he was among those who came home.

To the most powerful office on earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless ... the wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God ... the special confidence of those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pinhole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.

As the story is told, "When McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn toward Moe's door and flash a grin and thumbs up" — as if to say, "We're going to pull through this." My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through these next four years.

For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.

For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.

If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ... and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.

Thank you all, and may God bless America.

Posted by: kevin | September 4, 2008 6:10 PM

Many of my concerns about Sarah Palin have been mentioned already, including her inability to reach across the aisle, her extreme stances on so many issues having a direct impact on people in poverty, the half truths and factual misrepresentations about her positions on pork barrel projects, ethics reform and taxes and her disparagement of those of us who have committed our lives to ministry among the poor and to community organizing. However, I have not seen (or missed) any concern over her flippant willingness to trash the Constitution to make political hay. As an attorney, her comment that Barack Obama "wants to read them their rights" sent an unpleasant chill up my spine. The Constitutional protections that allow us even to have this dialogue are being dismantled piece by piece by the current administration. Corrupt politicians have turned our government into the lapdog of the multinational corporations and the extrmemly wealthy. This is probably the most frightening of all her positions.

It is no wonder that Obama's itelligence, idealism and vision appeal to so many. For Jim S., who expressed a concern about Obama being able actually to accomplish what he proposes, his entire campaign is testament to what he can accomplish.

Finally, at the risk of being accused of calling republicans "racist," I saw almost no African American faces and not one Latino face when the cameras panned the crowds. This is not a reflection of my church, community or country. It is, I fear, the face of the apartheid created by the great divide between those in poverty and the wealthy in our country.

Posted by: Maryann | September 4, 2008 6:11 PM

P.S. I am now a Presbyterian. Is that open minded or what ;-)

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 4, 2008 6:13 PM

I was raised in a Catholic home and attended Catholic schools through the eighth grade. Today I am an unbeliever in Religion or really God as He was taught to me because I have seen so much hate from those who claim to be acting in God's name. Still, perhaps because of my background, I have a very sensitive spirit, and I found Gov. Palin's speech almost unbearable. From the tone of her voice that drips with contempt to the dishonesty of her words, her speech made me physically ill. If I were to pray, I would pray that the Christians at this site see with their hearts not their minds and eyes. Perhaps then we can hope for a political discourse that draws people together in the interest of solving the very real and pressing problems that we face.

Posted by: Christina | September 4, 2008 6:17 PM

Wow!!!

In less than two hours since I last looked at this posting, over 150 comments have been posted (more or less due to duplications). That has to be a record for GP!

And many lurkers must have come out and posted here; I see a lot of new names. Welcome--I hope a few of you post again when it's quieter. There's too much here to respond to.

Peter S: Okay, I took a look at americanthinker.com. It turns out I've been on this site before; I can't recall why or when, but it must have been rather recently. I can't say I'm very impressed. It appears more like a portal for right-wing spin and propaganda than a real source for critical thinking. And that impression was reinforced by titles like "Palin rules, libs drool" or "Why are liberals so gullible?"

But maybe you can point to some specific articles on this site that you think are particularly thoughtful. Otherwise, I'll take a good, thoughtful conservative columnist like Brooks or Will over this any day.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 4, 2008 6:26 PM

Someone above posted a comment about Sarah Palin's abysmal environmental record. Thomas Friedman, in the column I cited early in this thread (1:59 PM) talks briefly about Palin's environmental record.

Indeed, it does not look encouraging.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 4, 2008 6:29 PM

The other issue was her belief that McCain knew how to defeat evil.

Oh, how true, Phil! Of course, the corollary to "they're evil" is "we're good." For any Christian, that ought to be an extremely troubling thing.

Posted by: Don | September 4, 2008 6:32 PM

"The Church, The State, And The Poor, Are 3 Daughters Which We Should Maintain But Not Portion Off."

"Those Who Can Give Up Essential Liberty To Obtain A Little Temporary Safety Deserve Neither Liberty Or Safety."

"Tricks And Treachery Are The Practice Of Fools, That Don't Have Brains Enough To Be Honest."

Benjamin Franklin

Great words from a great man. The Christian Right continues it's dominance and rise to power and continually MOCKS God to obtain it.

Shame on you who invoke religion into the picture. We need to be more conerned about the Constitution and the Sovereignty of America. God will stand beside us no matter what!!!!

Religious and Atheists are all at risk from the evil Right.

I testify to you who truly believe in God, to be warned, Evil will deceive the world through "religion!" What a great way for evil to infect the people with mockery of God! According to the Christian teachings, isn't that "Idolatry??" To worship "religion" over God!

Be aware and be informed before casting your precious Constitutional right to vote!

Your "Freedom of Religion" rights and way of life may be in jeopardy.

Ask the Answer!

Posted by: Bill | September 4, 2008 6:34 PM

Obama said it best when he said that "change does not come FROM Washington but TO Washington". And the grassroots movement of the campaign is the real deal versus the politically expedient pick of Palin. Her myopic Christianity will appeal to the dualistically minded, just as the Republican convention of "derision" does.

The very bottom line for me, informed by the person of Jesus, is that I do not believe John McCain would actually recognize Jesus appearing today, and now I have doubts about the same with Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Michele, Oregon | September 4, 2008 6:41 PM

Frankie: For your information, Obama writes his own speeches. Check it out. My biggest complaint with the Palin speech was her denigration of community service. Doesn't this, in a way, diminish the acts of people who join the peace corp, go to disaster sites and, yes, even some of our missionaries? A certain amount of knowledge is gained when we step up to help the less fortunate. Perhaps it doesn't give us economic or international political expertise, but it does teach us something about working with people, developing compassion and empathy. Would God ask any more of us than that? I'm just asking.

Posted by: Iris | September 4, 2008 6:45 PM

I would urge all who wish to "wait and see" whose tax plans and policies are more likely to benefit the nation's poor and middle classes (who, let's be frank, need to benefit more than do the wealthy) to go directly to the websites of both candidates to read the candidate's OWN words on the subject. I have been to Obama's and read his plan. Clearly, McCain is lying in his attack ads, regarding what Obama "plans to do" with taxes. Frankly, I am not going to vote for a candidate who lies. I did not vote for Hillary, who didn't actually land "under sniper fire" at any time, and I will not vote for McCain. One should never trust a liar. If they lie to you now, about their opponents, instead of intelligently arguing against the ACTUAL plans and policies of that opponent, and if they won't state facts, but rather fabricate lies, in order to get elected, then clearly, there is a risk McCain and company will be another "Tricky Dick"and friends in the White House. And we just don't need another Nixon.

Posted by: Sue Molenda | September 4, 2008 7:00 PM

There is no lack of commentary on the speech. I agree that there is an issue with family values. As a Democrat and liberal I am pleased that Republicans have lost the double standard and embrace equality of the sexes when it comes to raising children but the issue goes to integrity. You can change your mind when you are not defending yourself against criticism you, yourself (Right Wing Evnagelicals) levied against others. When you change your mind during a time of opportunity, when it is expedient in defense of your own violation of your standards it belies a lack of integrity. Like McCain who keeps changing his mind at opportune times, Palin is a perfect moral match as a running mate -- but neither could be trusted to govern with integrity.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 4, 2008 7:16 PM

You betcha this mother's choices weigh in with the "family values" party... I raised 2 boys and I am unable to count the number of days I missed work due to their medical emergencies, serious chronic health problems, major and minor surgeries with anesthesia and hospital stays, family counseling appointments... even if Palin's husband adopts the role of full time stay-at-home parent, that would still not mitigate Palin's absence from a sick child's bedside or hospital room, nor from the soccer sidelines, parent-teacher conferences, school plays, on and on ad nauseum. The choice to have a child is a commitment to being present in all the ways that count... Palin's inevitable absence from the lives of her infant and young children would most certainly be detrimental to their emotional and mental health.

Posted by: Laura M | September 4, 2008 7:21 PM

James M

"She called herself a female pitbull...there are other names for females of the canine species. If the shoe fits..."

Your comment crosses the line here. As a woman, I find it extremely offensive when anyone refers to a woman who has self confidence or is aggressive as the B-word. Those character traits are fine in men, but unacceptable in women. This is the double standard.

I didn't like her smugness, either. But there is no need to resort to that term in describing her.

Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 7:26 PM

Mr. Wallis,

This is the first I’ve commented on your blog and I found myself compelled to so after this outstanding article.

Unfortunately, I’m not too impressed with Mrs. Palin. Her track record is really not that impressive and not once did she speak of the issues we face today as a nation. I do give it to her for coming out of nowhere in such a short period, to rally the GOP the way she did; but then again, they needed that boost!

I have heard some sexist remarks about Ms. Palin and how is she going to be able to serve as VP and a mother of small children – the funny thing about it was the sexist remarks where made by women themselves!

Mrs. Palin also left a bad taste in my mouth after all the Obama/Biden bashing. Last week, Obama respectfully, commended John McCain for both his military and congressional service and considered him a formidable opponent. Obama also impressed me with his recent comments against the press and how they should leave the Palin’s pregnant, 17 year old daughter out of the picture considering he too had been the child of a young, 18 year old mother.

To me, as a Christian Catholic, I’m impressed with Obama’s accomplishments, having reached out and assisted the poor, homeless, elderly and jobless. This is a young man who could have pursued a totally different path after graduating from law school but instead chose to give back to the community and to those in need. Those are the same traits that I was brought with and I respect him for that.

As a former Boy Scout, I was taught to conserver our earth. Like our Native American ancestors believed; Take only what you need and leave the rest. Our Lord indicated in the Bible that we are to be stewards of this earth… we are to guard her, watch over her for she is our home. If we are to do so, then we must look towards a greener earth and seriously consider what we are doing to affect climate change and seek out alternative fuel sources. I’m in the oil and gas industry and reports indicated that drilling for offshore oil would only render 3-5% more than what we currently extract. Is it really worth the effort or should we not channel all that money towards researching alternative fuels and avoid generating more pollution for the next generations to deal with?

With all the issues at hand, I see that the candidates in this election can surely talk the talk, but I also pray to our Lord that whoever gets elected can truly walk the walk.

God Bless all and God Bless the USA.

Posted by: Rick (Houston, TX) | September 4, 2008 7:29 PM

There are two men running for President.

They both advocate reform.

At the end of this campaign, a campaign that can be entirely shaped by two men, what reform/advancement in our political life and self-governance will have been accomplished??

Would we expect years of actual office-holding will bear different results??

I will pray.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 4, 2008 7:39 PM

Thank you for your analysis. This election is about the issues that will change this country for better, not the election of personality or ideologies.

Posted by: Yosh Sakuragi | September 4, 2008 7:46 PM

I have been very disturbed about the direction our country has gone the last 8 years. The poor are poorer, the middle class is struggling and unemployment is overwhelming. As a nation, we have shown arrogance in dealing with other countries and our position as a world leader is besmirched and weakened. We invoke God a lot politically but we do not seem to think the New Testament is a guide for our nation. Some serious change is necessary and I am afraid it might be a little late but I am voting for Obama and Biden.

Posted by: Fran Carlson | September 4, 2008 7:52 PM

I am sickened that the republican party claims to represent Christian values! What an embarrassment. Worse yet, all of the unsaved that listen to this and formulate an opinion of Christianity based on their example... no wonder fewer people are attending church. If I weren't a Christian already, and this was my introduction, I'd run as fast as I could! Thank God for sites like this that can balance the perspective. Before I found sites like this I thought it was me... was I crazy? Do I see a different Jesus? Am I not understanding the teachings in the Bible?

Posted by: Valerie | September 4, 2008 7:57 PM

Palin was impressive, which scared me. I am a teacher, mother of three, and a multi-tasker. When she stated that as a hockey mom and mayor etc, that she was great at multi-tasking, I thought "I don't want the vice-presidency reduced to just one of many tasks on a person's plate." Think about when Hillary Clinton chose to seek public office--it was well past her daughter's infancy and puberty. On another note, Palin did talk plenty about her own family. If we want to know who our candidates are we do need to know about their families.

Posted by: Helen T | September 4, 2008 8:02 PM

I find it extremely troubling that a woman who cites her Christian convictions votes against bills that help children, disabled, and seniors. Here are some facts, and a weblink where you can confirm them: Check out samefacts.com to see the facts on Palin’s opposition of crucial education, health care and seniors funding since 2007. This includes her vetoes of replacement of unsafe sports equipment, repairing a school bus, replacement of outdated hospital equipment, acquiring diagnostic hospital equipment, access road to seniors housing project.

And pay attention to this: July 2008: Special Counsel Appointed Last Month to Investigate Palin Abuse of Power Claim. In July 2008, the Alaska State Legislator voted 12-0 to approve $100,000 for a special investigator to begin an investigation into claims Palin fired a former state official because he would not fire a state trooper who was involved in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister. The legislator’s intent was to investigate the events surrounding the termination of former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and improper action by Palin and her administration. [KTVA 11, 07/28/08]

Although Palin claims not to have done this Mr. Monegan has the correspondence that shows why he was fired.

Posted by: bren | September 4, 2008 8:09 PM

Her speech was full of fabrications and half truths. As an Alaskan resident for 28 years I can tell you she has some skeletons in her closet that the media has yet to uncover. She DID support the "Bridge to Nowhere" and then changed her mind. Her "energy rebate" was crafted by the state legislature after her proposal to give us all "credit cards" was deemed cumbersome and full of bureacratic nightmares. Many of her "accomplishments" were the work of that same legislature. She did not support increasing the level requirement for our state's version of SCHIP--children's health care program known as Denali Kid Care, which also provides care for pregnant women--to 200% of the federal poverty level (and this in a state where everything costs more than in most other places.) Her own daughter, of course, will have access to the best care our state employee insurance provides, as does her special needs son. The program would have cost an additional $6 million, but she gave $500 million to a Canadian firm in a licensing deal to construct a gas pipeline with no guarantees from the gas producers that they will even use it. She also refused to release studies done by the state on the status of the polar bears after they were designated "protected" by the Secretary of the Interior. It doesn't take a a political genius to be elected to public office in this state as the recent indictments of our US Senator and the conviction of some of our state legislators will attest. She is embroiled in a legal battle right now over the firing of our Commissioner of Public Safety after it was alleged she tried to persuade him to terminate a state trooper who was in a nasty custody battle with her sister. I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture.

Posted by: Annette | September 4, 2008 8:25 PM

Dave, Bless you for your thoughtful comments. I've followed a simlar path from Right to Left and back to somehwere sort of in the middle.
Ruth, Do you actually believe Joe Liberman would've delivered exactly the same speech? Please.
Anne posted: "If I'd been "church-shopping" these past two weeks, I think I could tell where the story of gospel love and inclusion and generosity got proclaimed." I agree completely, it was at the Styrofoam temple in Denver!
The Gospel of Love and Inclusion is our official state religion, aggressively promoted by liberals on state and federal courts. While not the exact of opposite of the Christian Gospel,
they are nonetheless very, very different. The Democrats, and their allies on the bench, promote a religion of good works. The followers of this religion choose
to define love in their own way, and earn merit by "doing good" as defined by each individual. While often complaining of the sinfulness of their
opponents, they explicitly deny the fallenness and sin in each person, which is why criminals are often free from facing the consequences of their actions. (To their credit, followers of our state religion often have genuine compassion for the victims of crime.) The Christin religion--NOT to be confused with the Republican Party, please--knows that good works are futile. We are too fallen to ever make much of a difference. This is where Jesus comes in. Asking him, and him alone, to free us from our slavery to sinful vanity ("I can do it on my own") is the only thing that works! Good works ought to follow this encounter with God, but sadly, they often don't. The failings of Christians in politics are particularly obvious. A Christian politician may or may not "have a servant's heart" but believe me, Sarah Palin isn't getting rich being governor of Alaska. So can you folks please consider that she is trying to serve others "according to her lights" as you like to say? How about applying that "Gospel of Love and Inclusion" to hockey moms you love to hate?
Blessings, for God's Shalom, the peaceful reign of his GOOD laws,

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 4, 2008 8:32 PM

I am so tired of hearing folks say it is "sexist" to question her ability to take care of her 5 kids. I don't think it is sexist at all. If it is sexist, then it means our good Lord above is sexist because he gave women a uterus to carry a baby and breasts to feed the baby. As a mother of 3, I am appalled to see a mother of a young infant and a small child, as well as an obviously troubled pregnant teen spend as much time away from her family as her new position will require. Men and women ARE different, and society needs to stop pretending we are the same because we are NOT. I can't believe the party of family values, the party of Dr. Laura, the party of Home-school your kids (which means you won't be able to work) is now in favor of a mother leaving her infant baby for the days on end that will be required if she campaigns and if she wins the VP spot. I can't believe that the Republican party is glorifying two teenagers who had sex and got pregnant. This is NOT the message I want to send to my 19 year old. Not too long ago they were condemning Brittany Spears mother and trying to get Jamie Lynn Spears kicked off of the family channel. Now the likes of Jamie Lynn Spears are sending encouragement to Bristol Palin? This is unbelievable. I hope that teens don't learn from this irresponsible cheering on of these two teens that it is okay to have sex outside of marriage at a very young age. For the mother to encourage this is unbelievable. This is not the character that I want one heartbeat away.

Posted by: Brenda | September 4, 2008 8:34 PM

I agree that she has the same rights as a man who has special needs children to run for office. However, I personally have no use for a woman who puts her political ambitions over her children while having more children than the average american family can afford. She does not care for the people she says she represents. Alaska has it's own norms and if they want her, fine with me. It is time we have a woman in these positions but she may as well be Phylis Schlafly and that is not my idea of a modern woman. Colin Powell decided against running because his wife was vulnerable, Palin is less than a mother in my eyes for exposing her daughter to the coming scrutiny. Further more, when you run for this type of public office, nothing is sacred, ask John Edwards wife.

PS. How can joe in Chicago be so sure exactly what Jesus meant?

Posted by: Cheri | September 4, 2008 8:40 PM

Sarah Palin fails completely to prove any of her so-called accomplishments. She has only one course of action...attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with her opinions. I find her to be light on integrity, experience, truthfullness and high on desire to achieve, regardless of who is hurt in the process, such as her family. As a woman, I could never support the ticket with her as VP candidate.

Posted by: Virginia | September 4, 2008 8:41 PM

I have discovered that the latest TIME magazine confirms some of the facts I listed in an earlier post. And I am very grateful for Annette's comments, from the ground, as it were, in Alaska.

As an aside, doesn't it bother anyone besides me that Sarah Palin was actively involved in an organization working for Alaskan independence? Is this the same person who agrees with "Country first"?

Posted by: bren | September 4, 2008 8:45 PM

I have been praying that God would open the eyes of fellow Christians to see which political team is interested in helping the "least of these".

After hearing a lot of speeches last night (Carly Fiorina (ex-HP CEO), Meg Whittman (ex-Ebay CEO), and the other ex-candidates), I was reminded of the articles I have been reading in the latest Sojounders. Articles that tell of how poverty is getting worse here in America, how the gap between the have and the have-nots is growing daily. The Republican party hardly even mentions people who are hurting and need help. They are more concerned with protecting their tax cuts.

Then to top the evening off Gov. Palin wasted no time demeaning the work that Sen. Obama did as a community organizer. A community organizer that meets with people who are hurting and need help. A community organizer that does exactly what Matthew 25 tells us to do.

Reading your blogs gives me hope that this election time we will get it right.

Posted by: Mary Patrick | September 4, 2008 8:56 PM

"The suggestion that running for vice president with a 5-month-old special-needs child and a pregnant 17-year-old daughter should make her suspect as a mother is a blatant double standard that would not be applied to a male candidate." -
WRONG!

I would certainly feel the same concern for a male candidate running under these issues - there are times your family needs you more than a job, especially when there are many others who can do the job as well or better.

Posted by: Cynthia Webb | September 4, 2008 9:10 PM

The Alaskan independence rumor was hearsay, and has been retracted. Sarah Palin never belonged to the party.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 4, 2008 9:12 PM

The way I was raised, if I had spoken with the deceit and distain that Sarah Palin did last night, my mother would have slapped my face and washed my mouth out with soap.

Jim you are a scholar and a gentleman, but the only appropriate response to Palin’s message of scorn and hate is to turn away.

Luckily I am not a gentleman and a scholar and I will have my say.

Wednesday’s performance at the Republican Convention reminded me of a vigilante mob straight from an old western. These are dangerous people who respect neither the laws of man or God; who hearken only to their own self interest, willing to sacrifice both truth and common decency on their alter of power. What we watched was the transformation of a political party into a lynch mob. A mob with hired guns at the lead; out to rid the range of all those who challenge their twisted, self-serving view of reality.

May God have mercy on them.

Posted by: David Southworth | September 4, 2008 9:14 PM

A couple of things here:

1) The speech was written by one of Bush's speech writers (non issue for me).
2) She blatantly lied about Obama's record of writing legislation. He has written and co-written a number of vital ethics reforms, disaster relief reforms and more than 100 other bills and resolutions (see www.thomas.com
3) To diminish Obama's community leadership in his early 20's (how many 23 year olds do you know who are community organizers in a city like Chicago?) is down right spiteful (and maybe a sign of jealousy?)
3) The speech had no substance and was little more than a cheer leading session for Republicans and spiteful, deceitful, and arrogant personal slams against Obama and democrats.

I'm embarrassed that Jim Wallis thinks she gave a "strong criticisms" of the Democrats. She gave criticisms based on mis-information (a regular tactic of the GOP).

I agree that family should be off-limits. Let's discuss and debate the issues. Obama has lifted McCain up as a true patriot, not only as in his military career, but also in his career in the Senate, and as one who truly loves this country and wants the best. However, Obama was clear about his criticism of McCain: his and the policies of the Bush administration, and those supported by the Republican Party, are failed policies that have increased the disparity between rich and poor, left the United States' reputation abroad in shambles, and has utterly destroyed the lives of those living in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, Obama is not innocent of passing on mis-information, but he has repeatedly corrected himself or changed his position once the information has been brought to his attention. Yes, yes he has used McCain's own words against him, including McCain's obviously exaggerated response to Rick Warren's question with regard to the definition of "middle class" (McCain answered flippantly with those earning less than $5 million). While it was certainly not a smart thing to do on McCain's part, I believe it does speak to his being "out of touch" with the realities of a majority of Americans and is a tell-tale sign that he has certainly changed from since 2000.

The Republican party should be ashamed!!!

Posted by: Eric | September 4, 2008 9:15 PM

unless you count living next to Canada and Russia as foreign policy experience

Even this is dubious, Scot. She doesn't live "next to" Russia or Canada. Sure, Alaska shares a land border with Canada and a water border with Russia, but the distances in Alaska are so vast that the Canadian border is a long, long way from Wasilla or Anchorage, and it's a treacherous mountain range away from Juneau. And Russia is so very far away from any of the Alaskan population centers that Alaska almost might just as well claim a border with Denmark. (My state, Ohio, shares a water border with Canada, but no politician in Ohio that I know of would use that fact to try and claim foreign policy experience.)

Maybe Gov. Palin did some negotiating with Canada for that dubious natural gas pipeline, I don't know, but it hardly counts as serious foreign policy experience.

Posted by: Don | September 4, 2008 9:28 PM

Here are some key facts from the link above, posted by Peter S.(Thanks, Peter):
Income and wealth distribution: The latest World Bank estimates show that the richest 20% of U.S. households had a 45.8% share of total income, similar to that in Britain and
Israel In 65 other countries the richest quintile had a larger share than in the U.S.

Investment has been buoyant under President Bush. According to the ICP, outlays on additions to the fixed assets (machinery and buildings, etc.) of the U.S. economy amounted to $8,018 per capita in 2005 compared to $4,963 in Germany and $4,937 in the U.K. Higher taxes on the upper-income Americans, as proposed by Mr. Obama, are likely to result in lower saving and investment, less entrepreneurial activity and reduced availability of bank credit. LOWER INCOME AMERICANS WOULD BE AMONG THE LOSERS. Emphasis added. My comments: Job creation by private industry creates far more jobs than government grants that fund "community organizers."
And, much of the stock of the "evil" oil companies is owned directly by working people, and by their pension plans. While people who work at oil companies
are hardly perfect, why does Obama feel justified in demonizing them? And why is Governor Palin attacked as the divisive one? Politics forces us to choose; one synonym for "taking a vote" is a "Division." That's just how politics works. Sure, the level of civility can improve, but will it help for SojoNet to demonize divisiveness?

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 4, 2008 9:34 PM

The sarcasm and condesension was dripping from Ms. Palin's tongue and I found it offensive for everyone. There wasn't a thing that embraced the "common good" of the nation, in my judgement. I recognize that the political game is full of rudeness and filled with attacks on the opposition, but when it comes to choosing our leaders, the mature will seek someone who is balanced, knows that life is never lived on one end of a spectrum (always a "both/and" -- not and "either/or" kind of existence we have), and seeks to assess those who aspire to lead by looking for such qualities that will most support the common good of both our nation and the peoples of the whole world as well.

Posted by: PJB | September 4, 2008 9:48 PM

In my opinion, McCain selected Palin for two reasons:

1. Energize the far-right Republican base. The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive.

2. Pick off disaffected Hillary supporters who are unhappy with her loss to Obama. It remains to be seen if that strategy will be successful. I believe that Hillary supporters who would be influenced by Palin's selection simply haven't taken the time to compare the political philosophies of these two ladies.

P.S. No matter what you might have thought of Palin's speech last evening, your heart had to melt at the scenes of her little girl holding the youngest baby on her lap and smoothing the baby's hair with her saliva.

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 4, 2008 9:52 PM

Jim,
I disagree with you: I would have equally questioned the judgment of a father who would decide to run for a president or VP with a 5 month old baby (whether with special needs or not!). I am the first one who would love to see more women in leadership positions and absolutely as VP or presidents! But there is time for everything in life. As a physician I understand how much care and attention children in early developmental stages need and how much more need are required for children with disabilities. To bring child to life is only part (smaller part) of parents' job. Our responsibility for those children goes far beyond that.

Posted by: bibi | September 4, 2008 9:56 PM

Can't resist writing a postscript after reading certain comments on this blog, those that cast aspersions on a candidate's character because of hearsay or because the candidate's personal life choices differ from those of the writers. Believe those comments reflect the mindset of Huffington Post or Kos bloggers. None of us are walking in these candidates' shoes and, therefore, should not be judgmental about their faith lives or family lives. For Pete's sake, we're voting for a politician, not for a pastor or a father- or mother-figure.

Posted by: judithod | September 4, 2008 10:04 PM

As I listened to the speech last night I tried to imagine the conversation that might take place between Sarah and Carol McCain, should they ever meet. I know we all understand John McCain's character and integrity. But I wonder how a social conservative, evangelical Christian woman can embrace the man who could not honor his vow to his first wife, mother of his children.

Somewhere out there, are there not some women who are troubled by this abandonment of Carol in order to find true love with Cindy? Isn't marriage a sacred covenant that should come first, in sickness and in health, even after serving your country with noble courage?

Todd

Posted by: Todd | September 4, 2008 10:10 PM

I didn't even watch the speech last night, because I knew this morning, if I really wanted to know about it, news people of every stripe would dissect and interpret it for me. AND I could choose which media outlet to do so depending on my own political bent. The 24-hour news cycle has made this a sad reality in America. It seemed when I was younger, news was just news; it wasn't given with a right or left lean, and people weren't always trying to yell over the top of each other. What ever happened to civility, and how did we become so ridiculously divided? I know very few moderates -people are left or right and that is that. Any kind of polite discourse is virtually impossible. And since when does one political party OWN patriotism? Since when are we not allowed to voice a dissenting opinion? I started out fairly excited about this election. Now I am just absolutely sick of it, and can barely bring myself to read about or listen to anything even remotely political. Thank God for the BBC which, at least to American ears, is truly the fair and balanced news source. If you have BBC America, watch their evening newscast. It is geared towards Americans, and they do a good job of just telling the story (and, no - I was not paid to write this). Heaven help us, because I'm afraid whoever wins the presidential election, our nation is still going to be bitterly divided for a long, long time.

Posted by: Rose | September 4, 2008 10:10 PM

I agree that the Palin family's problems should be a private, but it's odd to believe that the press should publicize the story when she says, "Look, here's my Down syndrome baby!" and look the other way when she says, "I'm going to be a grandma soon."

The one connection between Bristol's pregnancy and public matters is Palin's (and her party's) stand on abstinence-only sex education. Isn't it proper to ask a VP candidate if she has any evidence regarding whether abstinence only sex education actually works?

I would assume that (1) Palin and her husband taught abstinence only sex ed to Bristol, (2) this approach did not prevent pregnancy, (3) that the pregnancy is an undesirable thing, and (4) the pregnancy would have more likely been prevented had Bristol been taught to refrain from sexual activity until marriage but also about techniques for avoiding pregnancy should she choose to override that advice.

Somehow it says something to me about the level of irresponsibility of a leader who thinks that abstinence-only is an approach to impose on everybody when she has seen its clear failure in her own family.

Or am I missing something?

Pygmalion

Posted by: Pygmalion | September 4, 2008 10:20 PM

Steve, even blogs in Alaska can post total nonsense. Again, Jesus was NOT a community organizer funded by taxpayer dollars, and Pilate was not elected.
Google Assemblies of God and click on doctrine. You will find most of it is very similar to other non-liturgical Protestant churches. (Practices vary widely among individual congregations. ) Women have been ordained as A/G pastors since the founding of the denomination, decades before liberal Protestants got around to it.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 4, 2008 10:32 PM

Here are the Fundamental Doctrines of the Assemblies of God:

WE BELIEVE...The Scriptures are Inspired by God and declare His design and plan for mankind.

WE BELIEVE...There is only One True God–revealed in three persons...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (commonly known as the Trinity).

WE BELIEVE...In the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. As God's son Jesus was both human and divine.

WE BELIEVE...though originally good, Man Willingly Fell to Sin–ushering evil and death, both physical and spiritual, into the world.

WE BELIEVE...Every Person Can Have Restored Fellowship with God Through 'Salvation' (accepting Christ's offer of forgiveness for sin). [1 of 4 cardinal doctrines of the A/G]

WE BELIEVE...and practice two ordinances—(1) Water Baptism by Immersion after repenting of one's sins and receiving Christ's gift of salvation, and (2) Holy Communion (the Lord's Supper) as a symbolic remembrance of Christ's suffering and death for our salvation.

WE BELIEVE...the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a Special Experience Following Salvation that empowers believers for witnessing and effective service, just as it did in New Testament times. [1 of 4 cardinal doctrines of the A/G]

WE BELIEVE... The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is ‘Speaking in Tongues,’ as experienced on the Day of Pentecost and referenced throughout Acts and the Epistles.

WE BELIEVE...Sanctification Initially Occurs at Salvation and is not only a declaration that a believer is holy, but also a progressive lifelong process of separating from evil as believers continually draw closer to God and become more Christlike.

WE BELIEVE...The Church has a Mission to seek and save all who are lost in sin. We believe 'the Church' is the Body of Christ and consists of the people who, throughout time, have accepted God's offer of redemption (regardless of religious denomination) through the sacrificial death of His son Jesus Christ.

WE BELIEVE...A Divinely Called and Scripturally Ordained Leadership Ministry Serves the Church. The Bible teaches that each of us under leadership must commit ourselves to reach others for Christ, to worship Him with other believers, and to build up or edify the body of believers–the Church.

WE BELIEVE...Divine Healing of the Sick is a Privilege for Christians Today and is provided for in Christ's atonement (His sacrificial death on the cross for our sins). [1 of 4 cardinal doctrines of the A/G]

WE BELIEVE...in The Blessed Hope—When Jesus Raptures His Church Prior to His Return to Earth (the second coming). At this future moment in time all believers who have died will rise from their graves and will meet the Lord in the air, and Christians who are alive will be caught up with them, to be with the Lord forever. [1 of 4 cardinal doctrines of the A/G]

WE BELIEVE...in The Millennial Reign of Christ when Jesus returns with His saints at His second coming and begins His benevolent rule over earth for 1,000 years. This millennial reign will bring the salvation of national Israel and the establishment of universal peace.

WE BELIEVE...A Final Judgment Will Take Place for those who have rejected Christ. They will be judged for their sin and consigned to eternal punishment in a punishing lake of fire.

WE BELIEVE...and look forward to the perfect New Heavens and a New Earth that Christ is preparing for all people, of all time, who have accepted Him. We will live and dwell with Him there forever following His millennial reign on Earth. 'And so shall we forever be with the Lord!'

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 4, 2008 10:48 PM

Posted by: JamesM | September 4, 2008 4:53 PM

Shall we follow your track record of objectively weighing the politicians of both parties to find that level ground,

I am a private citizen - not sure if my objectivity is that important. I am refering to Wallis and the Big Four for the most part.

Moderatelad, uh er, Big Guy?

It's just big guy - no more no less

Blessings to all!
.

Posted by: big guy | September 4, 2008 11:31 PM

Dave Barry has penned the most insightful commentary to arise out of either convention.

www.davebarry.com

"Christians unite and stand up for Sarah Palin, no matter what your political stance. She's one of US -- a real, genuine born-again Christian! She's downright refreshing!"

Posted by: Al N | September 4, 2008 2:28 PM

oh, Horse Hockey, Al; so were Bushes 1 & 2, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Andy Rooney and Milton Berle

JFK was the only non-born againer, hence non-Christian of the modern era; he was Catholic;, I'm afraid your "born-again" presidents have drained the term of any significance whatsoever

Posted by: canucklehead | September 4, 2008 11:57 PM

I like Cindy McCain. But as a community organizer, I was offended and alienated by Sarah =(

Posted by: J | September 5, 2008 12:09 AM

Here's a good one. On tonights news cast it was mentioned that Palin raised 1 million dollars for McCain after her speech and Obama raised 10 million dollars after her speech. Now that is memorable and impressive!

Posted by: Dominick J. | September 5, 2008 12:26 AM

After our Downs Syndrome daughter was born in 1967, I became a "community organizer", founding a county ARC and gathering demographics about mental retardation in the region so that the state and counties could begin working toward programs in the schools and community, rather than putting our kids in an institution. I've always been an advocate for kids with special needs, in both volunteer and paid positions, albeit, fairly low pay.
Governor Palin's thoughtless ridicule of community organizers clashed rather loudly with her promise to be an advocate for special needs kids, and Rudy Guiliani's guffaws in ridicule were most hurtful.
As a Christian, I'm appalled that these people who claim to follow Christ could demean others who work for the betterment of those less fortunate. As an Independent voter, I watched both the DNC and the RNC, but that attitude sure helped me make up my mind!

Posted by: Kathie Curtis | September 5, 2008 12:36 AM

Sarah Palin can read from a teleprompter and she is a good actress, that is ALL! She did not write the speech, most likely Karl Rove did. She is like the American Taliban and if she had her way all American women would wear burkas except for her. The way she pointed her Down Syndrome baby and kept kissing him after the speech was digraceful as was parading her unwed pregnant daughter and the baby daddy out on the stage. If she is such a good Christian, how can she condone and downright CELEBRATE premarital sex? Can you say DOUBLE STANDARD. Religion is no longer something good, its now something crazy. There is no place for religion in politics, at least it says there is separation of church and state in this country. But Im not worried, cause Old Man MCCain is not going to win and his pig with lipstick will go back to the frozen wastelands and be forgotten!

Posted by: Judy | September 5, 2008 12:54 AM

I think John McCain and the Republican party did Sarah a disservice by pushing her onto the National Political campaign stage far to soon. She needs seasoning so that her understanding of what real issues mean to the future of our Country can catch up to her retoric. We need Statesmanship and she hasn't got it - yet, but is bright and can with time.

Dick

Posted by: Dick | September 5, 2008 1:39 AM

Ms Palin did a good job last night. I totally oppose her words but the marketing puppet masters gave her a typical republican speech made to ignite republican enthusiasm. It should make all of us cautious, and work harder, with love, to promote what we feel is best for our country and our faith.

They talk as though THEY have NOT been in control for the past eight years, and past six years of congress. They have!

Personally, I found the republican verbage sickening. I've done emails with many friends, and even my republican friends agreed with me. I don't want these mean-spirited people running the executive branch of our government any longer.

As a friend of mine said today: "I'm pretty sure we would not let students who run for student council in their schools get this nasty. It's too bad the adults are a horrible example."

As for Ms Palin, if she can handle child-rearing and be the VP, more power to her, and let's pray for her kids as mother will always be away. That would not be my choice.

Posted by: Ted | September 5, 2008 2:09 AM

I am upset for Sarah Palin's children. Your mother gives birth to a special needs child, then your sister becomes pregnant, and Dad seems to be busy with his sports and work - where does that leave the children?

I think a Mother's role is different! A mother consoles, cares and is available for her child - whether in the human or animal kingdom. As a born-again Christian, I am so sad to hear "family values" thrown about so casually. Sarah Palin only seems to want power - not family harmony, not peace. She certainly doesn' embrace Jesus's teachings to love thy neighbor, to turn the other cheek.

I wasn't sure about McCain - and now he has picked this cold, power-mad woman in an attempt to get women to vote for him. But she is opposite all the womanly qualities I admire - love, kindness, mothering, softness. She does not have the balance one should have as a Mother first and a Politician Second.

Thank you and God Bless!

Posted by: Ruth Amy Miller | September 5, 2008 3:38 AM

Emily Rose: I think you're describing how executives make decisions with their leadership teams. As VP, she would make few decisions of significance, ever. If she became President, or acting President, she would have many individuals providing information and advice. (My one disagreement with your post is that, armed with this information and advice, she would indeed be "calling the shots.") I think she has shown good judgment, and unusual courage, so far. Obviously, many on this forum disagree, mostly for ideological reasons. Nothing a Republican does could please them. Others here are more open minded and thoughtful.
Blessings,

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 5, 2008 5:10 AM

I participate on a debate forum that has been discussing Governor Palin for days now. It is remarkable how sensitive her defenders are, especially since I remember how Geraldine Ferraro was scrutinized the first time there was a female VP nominee. While her private life and that of her family is "none of our business" it does point out the fallacy in believing abstinence education to be effective, even in devout Christian families. I respect Ms. Palin, but I think she is just plain wrong on some issues. And I have read and heard enough about her in the past few days that I am tired of hearing about her and how she's going to be the GOP's panacea this election cycle. If anyone wants information that they can read without rose-colored glasses, an acquaintance of hers, Anne Kilkenny, published an open letter at this The Nation's website.
Part of respecting this candidate is treating her the way we would any other candidate for the office, without the kid gloves.

Posted by: Peggy | September 5, 2008 6:07 AM

The Nation, while venerable, is a far left publication that contributes nothing at all to the togetherness some posts seem to long for. (I used to be a subscriber.)
As for abstinence edication, I would not expect short term results from poorly funded programs. Prior to the sexual revolution, abstinence, taught, if not always practiced (!) by the churches, was the only sex ed there was. Have things really gotten better now that Hollywood does most of our sex ed? "Scientific" sex education is a lot less scientific than its name. And community organizsing, while taught by well paid professors in Social Work schools, isn't scientific either. I've typed many, many Social Work papers! Social work appeals to those with kind hearts, and this is by no means a blanket condemnation. But its successes should not be overestimated. Do we want all 50 states to be a trillion dollar experiement for what Obama failed to achieve in inner city Chicago, in spite of heard work and obvious sincerity?

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 5, 2008 7:27 AM

Wow, the Daily Kos'ers have come out of the woodwork. This post has more (unhinged) comments than any I have ever seen. Did another site link up to this article?

Posted by: jesse | September 5, 2008 7:33 AM

As an effort towards non-partisanship, I would like Wallis to write another post entitled, "Beyond Obama's Personality."

Posted by: jesse | September 5, 2008 7:47 AM

What have I learned from this tidy little conversation?

We may see very different things in Ms Palin but I am not sure I hear a great differentiation in what we truly desire for our nation and our lives.

I think we are each as responsible to not drive wedges between ourselves, or allow politicians to drive wedges, as they are responsible to embrace and advance the highest commitments of this nation in humility before the Creator.

I would gladly join either the Republican or Democrat party if either of them could manage to throw a party costing hundreds of millions of dollars that conveyed a humble love for all the people and joy at the opportunity to serve. Why not just invite all the Minnesota DFlers (MN Democrats) down to the Excel Center and throw a party for them. Lighten up and live.

Do Justice
Love Mercy
Walk Humbly

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 5, 2008 8:11 AM

This post has more (unhinged) comments than any I have ever seen.

Jesse, maybe you can give some examples of some truly unhinged comments that you have read here. I read a lot of comments that fall in the emotional, visceral reaction category--both positive and negative reactions to Gov. Palin--but what comments exactly do you think are the product of an unstable mind (which is my understanding of the colloquial meaning of "unhinged")?

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 8:19 AM

"As I recall, our greatest president, Lincoln, didn't have any executive experience either. Whereas our current president has had plenty.

Posted by: Art | September 5, 2008 8:22 AM"

Concur with your conclusion, Art. Look where the executive experience of Bush/Cheney have taken us. If that is what the Republicans are offering, thanks, but no thanks. Eight years of Halliburton, Inc are enough!

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 5, 2008 8:33 AM

Posted by: phatkhat | September 5, 2008 1:57 AM

I just looked briefly at comments from "dogemporer." I'm not sure whether I can take it seriously. The Assemblies of God denomination calling for a Holy War against the USA? I mean, really, that sounds like paranoid delusion. I have my differences with AG theology (especially their dispensationalism), and yes, they've harbored a few loose cannons before (though they did depose Jimmy Swaggart after his fall from grace--after he refused to step down from pastoring his church and accept counseling, a gutsy move on their part because Swaggart's congregation pulled in a sizable percentage of the AG denominational budget).

There's an AG church down the road from me that does ministry to Spanish- and Korean-speaking immigrants. I think they are trying to obey Christ and fulfill the gospel.

I'd need to see a lot more evidence than some sour grapes offered by someone who left the denomination.

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 8:38 AM

Posted by: canucklehead | September 5, 2008 12:15 AM

Canucklehead, I don't know that anyone would want to be wassailing in Wasilla (don't you wove that awitteration?) around the end of December. It would be mighty cold.

But if you're right, all that alcohol flowing might give some of the more legalistic Christians pause before voting for her.

:-)

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 9:17 AM

While Sarah Palin’s joke about hockey moms and pit bulls got a big response at the RNC last night, I’m surprised that a public servant would use such a metaphor to define herself. I’m told that if pit bulls are trained properly they are loyal and gentle dogs. But the media image, the one that Palin alluded to in her joke, is of the powerful, snarling, dangerous animal that sinks its teeth into its prey and won’t let go. A pit bull that is trained to fight is singular in its mission: kill the other dog. Is this really the type of person we want leading our country? Someone who will attack with the intent to kill, no questions asked, no wisdom, no insight, no thought process? Someone who thinks that violence is the answer? And when you stop to think about it, the pit bull reference is about as violent as it gets.
I’m tired of living in a world dominated by violence. The streets of Rochester NY and other cities across the United States are filled with pit bull mentality: kill or be killed. How do we stop it? Leadership that touts an ethos of violence will not quell the violence in the streets. It hasn’t worked in Africa, it hasn’t worked in the Middle East and it won’t work here. Violence only begets more violence. Call me Pollyanna, but I want public servants to be people who live and work by an ethos of community, unity, peace and the betterment of the world for all of humanity.
In writing I realize some may see me as a traitor to my gender and to the legions of working mothers out there who juggle home and family and identify with the young, plucky Palin. But I expect more from women in leadership than to prove they can be rough and tough “just like the guys.” I expect more from mothers, who create the world their children inhabit and will inherit. And I expect more from a woman in leadership than to refer to herself and other women as a vicious dogs. The hard-working women of America and their daughters deserve better role models than that. Granted, Palin is articulate. But just about anyone can be coached to deliver a speech crafted by a room full of writers. The question is, can she think on her feet? Can she be creative? Compassionate? Can she weigh the issues and make the thoughtful and best choice for all concerned? How will she help bring about a world of justice and peace? Using her metaphor, is she a trainable pit bull, one that is willing to question and learn or just one who wants to win at any cost? Undoubtedly some of you are saying, “Get a life – it was just a joke.” Maybe so. The pit bull joke got a great laugh, but I expect more from leadership.

Posted by: Sherri | September 5, 2008 9:23 AM

To Witness for Peace,

I readily agree that liberal Democrats can be just as susceptible as fundamentalist Christians to trying to impose their worldview on our country.

But the specific situation you mention--which, I assume, refers to the allowing of same-sex marriages in Mass. and California--isn't a valid example.

The courts of those states concluded that two consenting adults should be allowed, under our Constitution, to marry if they so wish, without regard to their gender. To rule otherwise would be to bow to the wishes of the majority sexual orientation, at the expense of the minority sexual orientation. And this is clearly unconstitutional.

As for allowing the voters to decide whether a minority should have the rights accorded to all under our Constitution: as more than one person has observed, if we did that, we might still have slavery today. The courts, and our Constitution, override "the will of the people" precisely when any individual American's rights are threatened.

Posted by: Art | September 5, 2008 9:27 AM

The purpose of the speech was to introduce Sarah Palin to the American public. In a good speech certain methophorical liberties are permitted in order to convey the message. Sarah did an excellentjob of introducing herself and letting you know who she is and what she stands for.

Too many of the negative comments contained here just represent the political views of the writers.

After looking at both conventions, the American people can decide. There exists a cultural war in America between people who stress individual rights versus the rights of the community. McCain and Palin stress the need for individuals to come together for the common good.

Posted by: John F.-Glen Cove,NY | September 5, 2008 9:48 AM

Hi all,

The Matthew 25 Network (yes, Jim Wallis' friends) has an online petition in reaction to Sarah Palin's speech at the convention.

See it here:

http://www.matthew25.org/news.htm

Just like I agree - or am partial to - most of Jim Wallis and Friends write I agree with the petition.

I pray that Matthew 25 will struggle to be non-partisan in its politics the way Jim here does. Don't stone me - I did not say IMPARTIAL, or OBJECTIVE. We are all partial; to a viewpoint and subjective in ways we cannot even guess, but aligning these views with 'party', that's another matter ...

I also pray that they don't start a blog on that site.

God's Politics was/is meant to stop a monologue and probably does but there is a disturbing trend in that many people who openly disagree with all that Jim Wallis and friends stand for keep coming back to show just how much they are opposed.

If I read Focus on the Family (for example), assuming they have blogs, would I find the likes of Rick, Payshun and Don, say, commenting negatively all the time?

Why, oh why? Would I return regularly to a fellowship/church where I oppose ALL that the elders and pastors stand for?

I rather doubt it.

Why do so many who disagree with Jim Wallis and Friends spare the time to respond to everything they write, let alone read it?

GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND EVERYONE ELSE.

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | September 5, 2008 9:59 AM

Sorry, Art, you are assuming there is a constitutional right to marry without any restrictions imposed by the state. That is an astonishing legal presumption, and an imposition of the highest order. So far, the states are still allowed to legislate gender (in 48 states), number, consanguinity, age, and species of marriage partners. All of these are now threatened. Polygamy and incest will be the next "rights" to be invented by the unelected. California also explicitly denied freedom of religion in Benitez/North Coast, claiming a California law trumped freedom of religion in the Calif. Constitution. While the Supreme Court is likely to overturn this on appeal, the case points out the egregious bias in California, in favor of the religion of the majority of the court.
But given your worldview, your comments are perfectly understandable. Your worldview should be promoted via legislation, NOT the courts.
Blessings,
Witness for Peace

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 5, 2008 10:23 AM

Lighten up folks. It was a political speech - vice presidents don't have a platform --- they promote the canidate's platform and the point of a convention is to get others motivated. We have 6 weeks to examine the facts and vote.
I was amazed and frankly a bit frightened by some of the rhetoric in this blog. Thank God we live in a place that allows us to vote and that we can spend the time and energy arguing with each other instead of trying to find food, shelter, or protection. Wouldn't it be better to use that energy to try to work together to be better stewards of the world and resources that God provided for us? Even if I don't agree, I try to give thanks for anyone who is willing to serve others - public or private. Deep breath -- let us try promoting what we believe in- not tearing down each other. The very future of this world and all to come may depend on our ability to work together. Let's try being 'still'and listening while we still can.

Posted by: Pam Child | September 5, 2008 10:25 AM

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 5, 2008 9:23 AM

Witness:

Yes, I meant screed. But scree fits to, as you pointed out.

The item I commented on demonstrates that conservative, moderates, and progressives alike can allow themselves to be caught up in conspiracy theories, demagoguery, and just plain silliness. This is why critical thinking is so important and why it's such a serious problem that so little of it seems to be taking place.

D

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 10:31 AM

I am shocked at the vitriolic tone of most of the
comments posted on this site. This does not sound
like it is coming from Christians. Governor Palin
is one of the most inspiring persons that I have
seen.I believe that many of these comments bashing
her are coming from people on the payroll of the
Obama campaign. I also believe that Rev. Wallis
has now confirmed the fact that he is a spokesman
for the democrats--specifically Barack Obama.
He certainly never questioned the experience of
Obama. Instead, he constantly praised him!

Governor Palin has MORE EXPERIENCE than Obama. He
has NO executive experience!

I also resent the fact that Rev. Wallis is
allowing people to post comments on this site
which are slandering the Assembly of God Church.
That sure doesn't sound like something that a
Christian leader would do.

Posted by: Margaret | September 5, 2008 10:50 AM

Governor Palin is an outstanding and very inspiring
person. She is much more qualified than Barack
Obama. He has NO executive experience.

Obviously, the Obama camp is afraid of her and
that is why he has his hateful followers out in
full force trying to destroy her. It won't work,
folks. I believe that she and McCain are going to
be elected in November. I am one of the democrats
who will be voting for them.

Posted by: Margaret | September 5, 2008 11:02 AM

Palin for all of her rhetoric is yet to prove that she has the ability and background to lead this nation.

I found her reference to a mayor being kind of like a community organizer except that a mayor actually has responsibilities to be incredibly insulting.

Clearly, Gov. Palin has no understanding or appreciation for what it is that community organizers do. I have worked in the non-profit community for many years and have had the pleasure to work with numerous community organizers. Their commitment, work ethic, and leadership skills are truly inspiring and I for one would prefer their experience to the inexperience of Gov. Palin.

Sen. McCain prides himself on his "maveric" reputation. There is nothing maveric about this pick it does nothing but cater to the conservative Republican base.

Posted by: Ania | September 5, 2008 11:06 AM

Good post Mr. Wallis!

Palin looks to be a Proverbs 31 woman

Now, let the race begin.

May God's providence allow the best candidate to win

Posted by: Ted | September 5, 2008 11:19 AM

Witness for Peace,

Reminder: I said "two consenting adults." (Granted, I should have added ". . . who aren't directly related.") I didn't say anything about adult/child, or different species, or more than one married partner. The same restrictions on marriage would apply to two consenting homosexual adults as to two consenting heterosexual adults. The latter can't legally practice polygamy, non-human species sex, etc. Nor would homosexuals be legally entitled to do likewise. They only want to partake of the same institution--marriage--and with the same rights and restrictions as those afforded to heterosexuals.

That would truly be equality under the law, which is what the courts and our Constitution are designed to uphold. That's why gays ask for "Equal rights, not special rights."

The possibility that granting this right might "open the floodgates" to all sorts of other marriage demands has nothing at all to do with gays being allowed to marry under the same conditions as straights. Any other marriage demands must be considered on their own merits or lack of merits. Again, this is what our courts are designed to do, rather than automatically link gays to those who practice incest, animal sex, child molestation, etc.

If you haven't yet seen it, check out the cover story of the Sept. 1 People magazine for a perfect example of what I mean: the wedding of Ellen De Generes and Portia De Rossi. If you let the Bible dictate your response to everything, you won't get much out of it. But that's why the Bible can't be allowed to dictate the standards of a diverse society. In any case, this is the kind of relationship the California court legitimized.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 11:21 AM

This was a great article by Mr. Wallis, he hits it right on.

As for the quote by Steve Chapman, and his questioning of Palin's experience, I find myself asking, "Do I want a vice president with limited expereince (Palin) or a president with limited experience (Obama)?" Of course, there are other factors to consider besides experience (e.g. judgement).

Posted by: Justin O'Rourke | September 5, 2008 12:26 PM

Sorry, "consenting adults" isn't in the Constitution either. It is your religious tenet, just as much as the condemnation of same sex intercourse in Islam, Judaism and basically everywhere but the post-Christian West. I am grateful to be in the company of Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo on this issue. I was recently privileged to again hear the latter speak, this time at Andover-Newton Seminary. Campolo reluctantly but clearly stated that he agreed completely with God's condemnation of same sex intercourse in Romans 1. At the end, he become bolder, and flatly stated he was willing to stand with God and " against the tide of history". Where I part company with these two fine Christians is how to
understand this fact in the political realm.
I would gladly leave this hot button issue alone, if the courts didn't constantly thrust it in our faces--knowing there is no likelihood of creating new rights in this area in a democratic (small "d") manner.
So we are left with the autocracy of the unelected, a matter about which Wallis and Campolo express little public concern. (We also disagree a bit on the unrelated issue of HOW to respond to the biblical mandate for the poor, and the role of government and politics.) Interestingly, there is a 3rd group that posts here: those who do not recognize the concept of revelation. In secular language, it is God's
"right" to tell us what is good for us. Arguments
in favor of creating rights where none exist in the Constitution are unconvincing and anti-democratic. Either McCain or Obama will soon swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Where does the latter stand on the erosion of our political and religious freedom? I fear he is drifting with the undemocratic Democratic current, and pray he will have the courage of Tony Campolo someday
Blessings,

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 5, 2008 1:05 PM

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I was so disappointed by this speech. I was hoping to see a principled person. Instead, Sarah blatently told lies about Barak and showed disrespect to him as a human being. As a Christian one of our most basic principles is to treat your brothers and sisters as you would want to be treated. EVEN IN POLITICS.

Absolutely she should disagree with his ideas and explain her point of view, but to be sarcastic and condesending towards Barak (as well as community organizers - who do very important work)is unprincipled and not the way of Jesus.

Let's encourage Sarah to be a politician of principle, who follows the way of Jesus.

Posted by: Val | September 5, 2008 1:55 PM

It is frustrating for me to read comments about qualifications to be President or VP.

To me, when a nation is as desperate as the United States is right now for widespread, systemic change, the notion of experience--particularly political experience--can sometimes rightly be viewed as more of an impediment than a desireable attribute.

But to hear Republicans say that Gov. Palin is "clearly more qualified?" Wow. In what sense can that possibly be true?

As a politician? She was elected by town of 6,700, then by a state of 600,000. Obama and his team, by contrast, soundly beat down a number of other Dem candidates with national experience--including the formidable Clinton machine--an accomplishment that no one seems to be giving any real credit for. And served as a State Senator and mounted a successful campaign for the US Senate.

As an intellectual? If you count education as something to be considered (and I do), then you really have to side with Columbia University, and Editor of the Harvard University Law Review (near top of his class) over a BS degree from the University of Idaho, don't you?

As a humanitarian? The important executive responsibilities that Gov. Palin seemed so proud of in her speech were seemingly aimed at getting as many US tax dollars earmarked for her little town ($1,000 per resident). BEFORE she became a reformer, that is. While Sen. Obama's much-belittled community organizing was actually about improving the lives of people who were left with almost nothing.

As a parent? Please. This has nothing to do with the discourse or the job description. Leave both families alone, OK?

At the end of the day--when the excitement wears off--Senator McCain's unfortunate pick will be shown to have taken a bright, promising young political figure and reduce her to a political tactic. That's not what we need. I'm sorry.

Posted by: GH | September 5, 2008 2:23 PM

>>Margaret, Good post. Yes Jim is in the tank for Obama and it is shameful that he does not come out and say that. Anything less is intellectual dishonesty!

Easy Sparky. Cut back on the coffee and take yer meds.

Posted by: Bud Duncan | September 5, 2008 2:32 PM

I am quite tired of the media and people asking questions such as the Chicago Tribune journalist asked:
"Palin has another, more complicated task that this speech postponed: reaching out to millions of people who are honestly wondering if she has the experience, depth and temperament to step into the Oval Office. What many of those Americans need to see are qualities like judgment, wisdom, tolerance and flexibility. Those traits were conspicuous by their absence tonight."

#1 She's not running for the oval office, John McCain is. She is on the ticket as the Vice President candidate. To ask if she's ready to take over the oval office is a non-sensical question. Was the same question posed to Quail in '88? To Gore? To Bush when he was on the ticket with Reagan? Of Senator Biden?
#2 Ask the same question of Mr. Obama please. He is running for the seat in the oval office. Does he have the experience to be there?

Mike

Posted by: Mike | September 5, 2008 4:00 PM

The constitutional issue has nothing to do with the Bible. (I mentioned Campolo since his is a regular on this site, perhaps confusing things in the process.)
People of all sexual persuasions already have the same rights, with minor variations (age and consanguinity) under state laws, to marry someone of the opposite sex. Two state courts, notorious for judicial activism, have created a new right to choose the sex of one's marriage partner.
Bush seeks to undo this with a Constitutional Amendment; a better solution would be to remove judges who insist on legislating from the bench, in direct violation of their oaths to their respective Constitutions. This is possible in California, but very difficult under the Mass. constitution.
To put it briefly, in the name of "equal" rights, completely new rights are being created, trampling on EVERYONE'S constitutional rights in the process.
Briefer still:
Legislation without representation is tyranny.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 5, 2008 5:05 PM

Witness,

Stop with the lying please. No one is trampling on your rights. no one is saying you can't get married. that would be trampling on your rights. I can marry a woman and my rights will be protected (even though that's not really a major part of the constitution.)

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 5, 2008 5:38 PM

I apologize if someone already posted this sentiment, but . . .

It is always about CONTEXT. The reason that people raise the issue of whether it is questionable for Palin to be running when she has a family that size not to mention a special needs child is BECAUSE OF WHO SHE IS AND WHAT SHE PURPORTS TO STAND FOR. It has been a long held belief in CONSERVATIVE Christian circles that when a woman decides to become a mother, she decides that will be her PRIMARY role. I know from which I speak having grown up with and been around many conservative Christians my whole life. I find it very interesting that many Christan women on the Right don't walk the talk they and their chosen religions espouse.

Posted by: Michelle N. | September 5, 2008 5:52 PM

Sister Marie,
Thanks for the explanation. I'm pretty familiar with A/G policy and theology. I've been a A/G pastor for nearly twenty years.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | September 5, 2008 6:13 PM

I watched Sarah Palin entire speech because I was hoping to see something hopeful for our distressed country abd our world community. What I saw depressed me to the point that I could not even watch John McCain's speech last night. The shallowness and lack of judgement and understanding of where this country is today caused me great distress. I cannot sleep the past couple nights for fear that this woman could become the ruler of this country in the next four years!

We need someone who can LEAD this country and inspire us to make the hard decisions and do the work to become again the great country we can be. Not another person who attemptg to RULE the country the way Bush has for the past eight years. With his choice of Sarah Palin, McCain has lost all the respect I had for him until the last three months.

Bill I

Posted by: Bill Irlbeck | September 5, 2008 7:58 PM

How about another issue: the Republicans are proud to wave banners and declare "country first" and then claim they are the party of traditional Christian values. When I read Scripture I find that the basic rule is "God First" and everything else second. My political views and what I feel are right come from my feeble attempts to live my faith by loving the Lord first and my neighbor as myself. "We must obey God rather than men". I love America, I believe our country at its best may be the last great hope for our world, though not perfect we have broken down many barriers, and we strive for equality and making this place better despite our differences. When my country is wrong I cannot pledge blind obedience and am called to speak out. If I disagree with however may be in power it is because I am working to obey God.

Posted by: tom | September 5, 2008 8:45 PM

I was fully prepared to vote for Bob Barr this time around as a committed anti war, anti abortion candidate. This would have been my first non Republican vote for the Presidency since 1976.

However, I have changed my mind and will proudly vote for Sarah Palin for Vice President.

For me, opposition to abortion trumps every other issue. I can not take a party or a candidate seriously that supports killing innocent human life. Period.

Posted by: Rob | September 5, 2008 9:16 PM

I also thought Ms. Palin's speach left out a lot. Her show of strength is not a breath of fresh air at all...and it was pretty low on any specifics. That being said I was also disapointed to read here a silly jab at her Pentacostal faith.

Posted by: Ross | September 5, 2008 10:21 PM

Was it a BSc from U of Idaho or just plain ol' BS as with most politicos' qualifications?

Posted by: canucklehead | September 5, 2008 10:26 PM

Rick said:
"The Islamic terrorists really couldn't care less who becomes president. But, truth be told, in 2004 Osama bin Laden was tacitly supporting Bush because he knew it would be easier to recruit for al-Qaeda against somebody who dared them with a 'Bring it on.'"
>> Rick, you and I have tangled before. I would call you a liar for these lies, except I'm sure you really believe them. They are simple liberal, Bush-hating talking points. First, a terrorist leader in Palestine is on record for saying he'd like to see Obama win! And who do you think Iran's Ahmadinejad wants to win? Obviously the guy who wants to talk to him without preconditions.
Secondly, Bin Laden was obviously trying to sway the election AGAINST Bush back in 2004. He thought he could scare the voters into voting against Bush. He simply underestimated the toughness of the American people.

"You wouldn't at all call that funny if the shoe were on the other foot -- in fact, you'd be calling them 'mean.'"
>> You're simply wrong again. I happen to have a sense of humor. Obama and his supporters don't.

Ania said:
"Clearly, Gov. Palin has no understanding or appreciation for what it is that community organizers do."
Karen Linn said:
"She insulted community organizers across the nation. These are the people who get things done."
GH said:
"While Sen. Obama's much-belittled community organizing was actually about improving the lives of people who were left with almost nothing."

>> Sorry, Ania, but Palin seems to understand perfectly what community organizers who work with the evil organization ACORN in Chicago do. Again, read Malkin's article, it describes them very well. And Karen and GH, I actually see your points. Palin should have said "Chicago community organizers". There are probably good community organizers elsewhere, where they are not tied to ACORN or the corrupt Chicago Daley machine.

GH also said:
"But to hear Republicans say that Gov. Palin is "clearly more qualified?" Wow. In what sense can that possibly be true? As a politician? .... As an intellectual?
>> NO, GH, not as an intellectual and especially not as a politician! I don't argue that Obama may have Sarah beat intellectually, and he clearly has her beat as a politician. But who cares? We're talking about: as a LEADER. As a leader she is clearly more qualified. If you disagree, tell me why. Where is his leadership experience?

Posted by: AlN | September 5, 2008 10:43 PM

Rick, you and I have tangled before. I would call you a liar for these lies, except I'm sure you really believe them. They are simple liberal, Bush-hating talking points. First, a terrorist leader in Palestine is on record for saying he'd like to see Obama win!

I don't know if that's actually true, but if it is I can tell you why -- because he assumes that McCain will follow Bush's policies, which helped to foment terrorism in the first place. No one but hard-core conservatives questions that.

Secondly, Bin Laden was obviously trying to sway the election AGAINST Bush back in 2004. He thought he could scare the voters into voting against Bush.

That is a damned lie. Most observers with knowledge of the situation believe that bin Laden sent the communique just before the election in the hopes that folks would be scared into voting for Bush, for reasons I already mentioned. In other words, bin Laden wanted a fight that he thought he could win, believing that he could mobilize a billion Muslims to go to war against the "infidel."

I happen to have a sense of humor. Obama and his supporters don't.

I doubt you'd be here if you did.

Posted by: Rick | September 5, 2008 11:35 PM

Great comments. Palin is so rude or is it honesty? I can't wait until the Messiah, oops I mean Obama gets elected. Obama has soooo much more experience than Palin. What did Biden say about Obama's experience during the democratic primaries. Viva la communism!

Posted by: brian | September 6, 2008 1:55 AM

I'm answering my own question(above)about book banning. It's a generic list of books banned at one time or another, including ones published AFTER the alleged incident.
The person who first spread the Palin smear is identified as “Andrew Aucoin,” a commenter on the blog of librarian Jessamyn West. West has done the right thing in keeping the bogus comment up and pointing out in her main post that “there appears to be no truth to the claim made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has turned up.”

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 6, 2008 8:07 AM

"I am not fine with bigotry of any sort, and don't appreciate being called one."

Well for one thing I never called you a bigot.

"BUT I think you are feeling the echoes of horrible things that have been said about, and done to, certain people in the past, and for that I am deeply sorry."

I appreciate your heart. It's a testament to your character. Your character doesn't extend far enough to protect the rights of people you don't agree with. You have conflated gay marriage with some type of disavowel of your rights. They are not related at all.

"I'm particularly sorry for not doing more to promote understanding of individuals struggling with same sex attraction. Everyone is searching for community and connection; I just don't think you are searching in the right place and the right way."

That's funny because I really feel the same way about you. For one thing I am not gay. It's just that I am an advocate for the community. I support their adult, tax paying habits to decide their own spouses. It's really a fairness issue and not a biblical one at least as far as civil socieities go.

"That is my personal sentiment, and there are certainly no easy answers on the personal level. I will stand by my statements on public policy, and pray that you will not take them as attacks on any individual, deeply loved by Jesus, and loved by me as well--when I'm following Jesus as I should!"

I wish I could just let your statements stand but they are an attack on a community that has suffered too much from Christians. I stand by my statements about public policy because your fears are unfounded and based on a really poor understanding of the bible. I am deeply loved by Jesus as are you and I do see Jesus just letting couples get married if that were their choice. He does it all the time with straight couples. But for some reason (discrimination) gays are not allowed the same privelege. Sorry but that's unjust.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 6, 2008 2:14 PM

Finally, a real woman in politics I can identify with. A wife, a mother, a marriage and a career. She displayed the type of characteristics that I find quite admirable. Grace under intense pressure, a good level of experience in elected offices and a record of reforming corruption. I wish more women like her would rise to the highest levels of government. Looks past the words and look at the life lived of each candidate. Their lives have shaped them, their decisions indicate what they will do. Not the rhetoric of a speech, but the life lived. I was quite taken by the lives lived of McCain, Palin and Cindy McCain. I see admirable qualities and they have each inspired me to be a better person. Isn't that what we need too? Someone who inspires and challenges us to be better people? I went to work the next day with more confidence to be a strong female leader wherever I go.

Posted by: Cindy Nowicki | September 6, 2008 3:19 PM

>>For me, opposition to abortion trumps every other issue. I can not take a party or a candidate seriously that supports killing innocent human life. Period.

Unless it's an Iraqi civilian.

Posted by: Bud Duncan | September 6, 2008 3:53 PM

...I should've said "SOME of those cultures are less good at....." since India is the world's largest democracy, for example

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 6, 2008 4:30 PM

Palin wasn't involved in book burning, that is true, but when she was mayor of Wasilla, she did ask the librarian at the local public library if it would be OK to have some (unspecified) books removed from the shelves. When the librarian replied that, no, that wouldn't be OK, Palin tried to have her fired.

D

Posted by: Don | September 6, 2008 4:42 PM

Aln,

Please don't hide behind sexism when you know your candidate doesn't have as much experience as you claim she does. The figurehead comment was about her doing nothing to be commander in chief of her national guard. You and other conservatives can't claim she has all this experience when she made no decisions to back that up.

ask and you shall receive.

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/09/03/wasilla-in-debt/

You also might want to look at City-data.com/

I am not making it up but good try though. Sorry but Governor Palin is not the savior of conservatism you all want her to be. She's just not.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 6, 2008 4:58 PM

Witness,

Jesus was not talking about gay marriage during Mathew 4. he was talking about divorce. So instead of focusing on people outside of the church why not focus on the folks in it? Why not make your stance against divorce stronger? It's a little hypocritical to ignore the log in the church's eye when we focus on the speck in the homosexual's eye.

Not only that but I never once called you a bigot or even implied that you were one. I said you were Ok with discrimination. Being ok with it doesn't make you an active participant in discrimination. Just so we are clear. If I had called you a bigot or insinuated you are one trust me I would have directly said so.

I remember the same argument about the right to vote coming from the deep south concerning marriage between blacks and white people. They felt the same way you feel now about it. It was discrimination then and it's discrimination now. You do not have the right to legislate who someone marries unless it involves force, rape, children or animals. Since this is two consenting tax paying adults they have the right to have a secular marriage just like every other couple in the United States. This is America, not some theocratic state.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 6, 2008 5:22 PM

Thanks Payshun for your opinion, and for insisting that I'm not a bigot. I think marriage should be regulated by democratic norms mediated through elected officials, not imposed by minimally accountable courts. (In my state they are not accountable at all). I never said "homosexuals are destroying the family." I agree, divorce is doing a great job on that account; you are assuming a hierarchy of my opinions without any evidence. The courts do most of their harm to families by ignoring the interests of children. The irony here is that liberals pride themselves on protecting children, but they don't. That's a whole other story, but it is relevant at SojoNet because Obama and the Democratic platform show no signs of correcting problems, other than by throwing huge amounts of other people's money at them. Except, of course, when they show more concern with creating new rights than with protecting old rights and values, recognized around the world. While you seem a perfect sensible and even humble person, there is an astonishing arrogance in the West when we assign the name "progressive" to many of the things most antithetical to family welfare. This is not an attack on a particular community; the self appointed leaders of many communities seem to be their own worst enemies(Jesse Jackson). Then there are "homosexual activists" who fail to convince voters and legislatures but are great at barnstorming "progressive" courts. Shouting words like "tyranny" and "discrimination" fails to meet the truly diverse needs of those of us who struggle with various forms of sexual brokenness. Often the needs are as diverse as the individuals. The courts' "one size fits all" approach to righting societal wrongs by punishing individuals just doesn't work. Governor Palin may or may not be a seminal thinker in this area, but she appears to have more common sense than the entire Democratic platform.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 6, 2008 5:57 PM

Witness,

Just as you use "the Bible" and "God's word" interchangeably--as though they were the exact same thing--you also use "people who are gay" and "people who struggle with same-sex attraction/sexual brokenness" interchangeably as though they, too, were the exact same thing.

In an earlier post, I said that believing the Bible and God's word are the exact same thing is your right--but you have no right to impose your belief on those Americans who don't share it. If you think you do have that right, I wouldn't call you a bigot. A much more accurate word would be fascist.

As for your latest interchangeable act, please be aware that a huge number of gays, lesbians and transgenders don't at all "struggle" with who they are. Rather, they embrace who they are fully, and celebrate it--precisely because it's who they are.

You're making a very fundamentalist assumption in thinking that all GLBT's must be hurting deeply and "need help." Just as you make the assumption that anyone who doesn't "have Jesus" in their life must be miserable. Wrong on both counts.

One more time: believe whatever you want, but don't try to impose it on anyone who believes otherwise. Because our Constitution won't let you. And should you one day be able to impose your beliefs on America despite our Constitution, you'll truly have fulfilled the name I suggested for you a few paragraphs back. Heil Witness to Peace!

Posted by: Art | September 6, 2008 8:27 PM

Witness,

Saying Palin has more sense is like claiming I can walk on water. Just so we are clear I can't and she has no sense on this issue. She lacks the sensitivity and awareness to understand the complexity of it. Most of the right wing lack sense on this issue.

You are still hiding behind a conservative agenda to portray healthy families that doesn't exist. How many families in America are dysfunctional? How many father's are afraid to spend time with their kids? How much abuse is going on? How much... Healthy families in America are in danger and it's not from the homosexual lobby, regardless of what you think.

Families are in danger because fathers (that have never had fathers) are raising kids without dealing with the pain of having had no role model. Families are falling apart because of a lack of intimacy between both parents and intense work schedules. Families are falling apart because of the bitter cracks in self esteem, trust and empowerment that plague all families.

Your focus on progressive leaders is a joke. You know that. Instead of doing all you can to focus on the things that are tearing apart families (think few jobs, mercy sex, lack of male role models...) you use same sex attraction as a scapegoat when it is not one. Less than %10 of all US population are gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgender... and yet you use the fear of their marriages to create a legalistic code of righteousness that has nothing to do with actually repairing families. You are too smart to fall into that trap.

Use your resources and your voice to empower straight families to deal with their own crap. You will see families become stronger. Leave the LGBTQ community alone. Live your life to the standards you believe and allow for others to do the same. That's the only fair thing.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 6, 2008 10:07 PM

Does profanity scare you? I am not an evangelical so my take on it might be a little different from you.

Shooting a gun has nothing to do with being president so your point is silly at best. The last time I checked presidents have an entire military to fight for them. Her being able to shoot shows none of the skills she needs to be president. The last thing I wanted to say was he still looked good making all those three pointers.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 7, 2008 12:20 AM

Payshun, quoting my earlier post: " I never said "homosexuals are destroying the family." I agree, divorce is doing a great job on that account"
We had one good exchange of posts, but now you seem to be ignoring nearly everything I say, using me as an outlet for all sorts of anger. You are also trafficking in stereotypes abut fathers, fundamentalists, and practically everything. I reject stereotypes about homosexuals. They are unique and beloved individuals, and many if not most are being ill served by self appointed leaders. And their privacy is being massively violated, all in the name of the dubious premise "we just need acceptance and then our lives will be perfect." Sorry, reality doesn't work that way. I have some more info that will back that up that I can't share on a public forum. If you are interested, please leave your email as a comment on my blog. joyfulreality dot blogspot dot com
I'll delete the comment and we can continue this off line. Obama has said some good things about families, but the governing will be done by the failed policies of the past enshrined, literally, in the Democratic platform.
Quoting Payshun: "Your focus on progressive leaders is a joke" No, it's the whole point of Jim's "God's politics" blog. I found Jesse Jackson's speeches of the 1980's very moving, and actually voted for him TWICE in the Democratic primaries! Jackson's flip/flop on abortion was also a big disappointment. I'm afraid Obama is also just a good speaker, although more educated. (Yes, he's won one Senate election). Wasn't Jackson sort of a community organizer with Operation Push?
I do agree with you that the target practice point is moot, as is basketball.
Blessings,

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 7, 2008 6:16 AM

Good article, Jim but I have to take exception with the following statement: 'The suggestion that running for vice president with a 5-month-old special-needs child and a pregnant 17-year-old daughter should make her suspect as a mother is a blatant double standard that would not be applied to a male candidate.'

Yes, there is a terrible double standard, but the way forward is to apply a stronger and more appropriate standard to men. I think it is absolutely fair game to ask of a 'family values' champion how her (or his!) political engagement affects the family.

Posted by: Russ Daye | September 7, 2008 12:18 PM

It certainly makes me question her judgment and her standards when I learn that she supports abstinence only rather than open sex education when she should see from her own family the ineffectiveness of this. I am also VERY concerned about her "I am a Christian and we should all be allowed to carry guns" stance. Not to mention the hypocrisy of bashing Obama's inexperience while touting her own (mayor of a city of 7000 and governor for a year and a half? Excuse me?)

I pray that she may not become "a heartbeat away from the Presidency." Unfortunately, I think she is all "appearance" with not the right "substance" for one who might become president. Is she, perhaps, a front for the oil companies?

Posted by: RevJM | September 7, 2008 6:06 PM

Posted by: AlN | September 7, 2008 5:12 PM

And it's perfectly OK for you, Al N, to slime everyone you don't agree with, by calling them vile, sleazy, and evil.

Double shame on you, Al N--do you really think your attitude as expressed in the slanderous comments you write here reflects the character of Christ whom you claim to follow?

And for heaven's sake, please cut out the idiotic and juvenile Obama Antichrist nonsense. It's getting to be more than a bit annoying.

Posted by: Don | September 7, 2008 9:38 PM

Sister Marie,"

her comments speak for themselves Jeff. i am ot surprised by her previous comments , and totally not surprised the censor it went by the folks here . I am an Asembly God Church member , and have seen the slams in the paper and blogs . Notice them more I guess. Now if the a person was a community organizer , and an Assembly of God member we would get lectures on sensitivity by the liberals of course.

Posted by: Michael | September 8, 2008 4:23 AM

Don said:
"And it's perfectly OK for you, Al N, to slime everyone you don't agree with, by calling them vile, sleazy, and evil."
>> WHO, I say, who have I slimed simply because I don't agree with? Huffington Post has proven what a slimey publication they are! Have you seen them? As an example, on the eve of her wedding, they slimed the President's daughter, and further suggested that he (GWB) doesn't deserve to have a day of joy with his family.

"Double shame on you, Al N--do you really think your attitude as expressed in the slanderous comments you write here reflects the character of Christ whom you claim to follow?"
>> Yes, I'm proud of what I've said here, and I (sometimes) pray over what I write. I've said nothing that's turned out to be false. Usually I'm just challenging you all to think before believing things -- such as whether or not Obama is truly a Christian, whether Palin is really less experienced than Obama, and whether or not any Christian should support a man who supports the killing of born alive infants.

"And for heaven's sake, please cut out the idiotic and juvenile Obama Antichrist nonsense. It's getting to be more than a bit annoying."
>> Sorry that you are annoyed by the fact that I've NEVER said anything close to "Obama is the antiChrist".

By the way, here's a quote from a recent story, showing how Iran's leadership is literally hoping for an Obama victory:
"Iran’s leadership has expressed “great pleasure” at the prospect of a Barack Obama victory in November, according to Menashe Amir, the Iranian-born head of Radio Israel’s Persian language service. But Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said he doubts that the American establishment “will allow” Obama to win."
>> Google "Menashe Amir" if you don't believe it.

RevJM said:
"I pray that she may not become a heartbeat away from the Presidency."
>> So are you thus praying for an infanticide supporter to become president? Think about it.

Posted by: AlN | September 8, 2008 9:23 AM

AlN witnessing the luv of Jesus here on GP again!!! Yessiree yayyyyyyyyyyy AlNNNNN !!!!!!! All choked up with milk of human compasion!!!!!

Posted by: Bud Duncan | September 8, 2008 11:57 AM

Can someone answer this question? Why should I vote in concert with the party and voters who have put the curent administration in office for 8 years?

The current administration was all but banned from the RNC. BUSH is the new 4-letter word. Isn't there some voter responsibility for electing this administration? And now those same voters want to turn their backs on their poor decision and elect a ticket who have very similar philosophical persectives. Where is the responsibility?

Enlighten me please.

Posted by: Leonie Sutherland | September 8, 2008 1:31 PM

Oh, I see Al N is back to entertain us. How cute.

Posted by: I and I | September 8, 2008 3:56 PM

I totally agree with JF!

1. The U.S. 'Death' penalty is immoral! 99% of Americans executed are very poor, most are sick, and the highest % are black; convicted by white judges, white juries, white appellate judges, etc... and they are 'killed by our tax dollars'.

2. Voluntary Wars, fought for profit and false claims, will never be worth the blood and treasure we steal. The 'Death' of SO MANY innocents, ours and theirs, is beyond immoral!

3. The 'transfer of trillions of dollars' from the middle-class to the uber-rich is immoral!

4. Degradation of the envirornment, for enormous profit, is destroying our gift of creation. Same size planet: 1 billion people, then 2 billion, then 3,4,5 billion. Now at 6-plus billion headed for 8 to 10 billion very soon. Oh, and they all want to drive cars and watch TV. More and More heat from all the new people AND all the Billions of humans using fossil fuels with no near end in sight! Totally Immoral!!

5. Finally, 'For Profit health care' is destroying our economy! Almost every 'capitalist-democracy' has health care from birth to grave, and they are prospering! In the USA, bankruptcy from getting 'real sick' or 'real injured' is the #1 cause of losing everything...That is scandalous and immoral!

It's time for another Christian led "Progressive Movement", like between 1900-1919!..

"America is so much better off, for all our ancestors fighting for justice. By the middle-class and for the middle-class!"

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves. And under a just God can not long retain it."
'Abraham Lincoln '

(social, economic, religious and political FREEDOM is what he was talking about!)

Posted by: ranger55 | September 8, 2008 8:33 PM

"The One" refers to a sarcastic anti-Obama ad by the McCain campaign. It does not compare him to the anti-Christ. It ends "He may be The One--but is he ready to lead?"
It is not full of Christian kindness, to be sure. I don't think that was the kind of campaign Republican donors had in mind. Or Democratic donors.
I keep coming back here, hoping that Jim Wallis will lead some sort of Christian middle road. He hasn't yet, but he has provoked a lot of thought and discussion. Some of you, and not Just Bud Duncan, apparently aren't real thrilled about a Christian anything. That's your right, of course. But it's a bit odd to be mocked for my Christian faith on a blog founded and funded by Christians. Barack Obama claims to be a Christian as well. So his fans have a choice: is he faking it for the cameras, or are you making fun of his faith as well? Or is his faith so starkly different from mine that you can make fun of me without mocking him? I'm curious, really.
.
Payshun:
I was not commenting on your faith. Seek God wherever you can find him. I hope your search is successful; it's your right. Please don't interfere with my faith by suggesting that Christians are responsible for all the diverse problems of the diverse group of people you label as homosexuals. I was referring, instead, to the arrogance of Western "Progressives" who dump their worst ideas on the rest of the world, misusing the vast talent of Hollywood. The world's major religions do not endorse same sex intercourse. The Bible agrees with all of them; it contains not a single positive word on the subject.
Blessings,

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 9, 2008 1:06 AM

I think John McCain's selection of Gov. Palin was a desperate ploy. He is hoping that women will vote for her because she is a woman. Sen. Clinton's supporters will not vote for Gov. Palin because of her "anti-abortion" stance. If either a man or a woman has a "Down's Syndrone" baby, who will need special care, AND a pregnant teenager, then that person should be staying close to home and supporting those children. How can Gov. Palin support her daughter as a new mom, when she's over 3,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.? It is not being sexist to say her children need her home. She can run for office when both babies are older.
None of the presidential candidates has offered solutions to the problems facing us. It seems to me the campaign has boiled down to middle school theatrics - "I'm more patriotic than you; I have suffered more than you have suffered". Please ... stop the bashing and tell us how these problems are going to be resolved. Let's see facts, figures, budget projections, etc.
I am an independent voter, try to be a Christian, and am very committed to reforming education. I'm also one of those crazy environmentalists, who think preserving the earth for my grandchildren is a good idea.
I want answers to how we're going to pay for universal health care; how we're going to pay off the huge deficit; what programs aren't working and should be cut. Tell us what we will have to sacrifice to become a nation able to produce energy on its own.
I want answers not 30-second sound bites.

Posted by: Athena | September 9, 2008 3:35 PM

Having read a bit about Governor Palin's political career, I would advise John McCain to watch his back.

Posted by: A J Daw | September 9, 2008 4:08 PM

I think McCain picked Palin like a pretty and shiny object to divert attention from his lack of good policy offerings, and because she offers red meat to excite the Republicans who were almost openly yawning about McCain's campaign. I believe the choice was made to win an election, not provide a good team to govern.

That being said, we'll have to wait until the high gloss wears off and then we'll see if there is any substance in Mrs Palin, at a time when she isn't reading a speech written weeks ago by George W Bush's speech writer.

By the way, my single mother sacrificed her energy, career and personal life to raise me and my brother to be good, thinking, productive people. I can't imagine my mom (or any parent) placing her children in such media spotlight.

I guess I just cannot understand the thinking of people who are so enthusiastic about such a speech as Mrs Palin's. Her speech didn't tell me much about Mrs Palin or her policies. The speech contained many condescending, juvenile and slogan-ish references to the other party's ticket, even though I feel pretty sure that she has even met either man on the other party's ticket.

Posted by: Lynda | September 9, 2008 8:26 PM

What an interesting article and comments! In my search for Sarah Palin articles, I read this one earlier. Check it out:

http://www.neueministry.com/2008/09/palin-and-church-leadership/

Posted by: Topher F | September 10, 2008 1:47 PM

Sarah Palin's church belongs to the Third Wave Movement, that was declared to be heretical by the Assemblies of God in 1949. If anyone has seen the movie "Jesus Camp", it gives you a birds eye view of what this movement is all about. The movement is training a young "Joel's Army" to take dominion over the United States and the world. Sarah Palin, attended a June 8, 2008 event, in (which she improperly used tax dollars to attend) Wasilla, to be publicly blessed with a "laying on of hands" by Pastor Ed Kalnins. At the event, a Kenyan African cleric, who is prominent in the Third Wave movement, and in Kenya who "drives out spirits of witchcraft", anointed Gov. Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Terry | September 17, 2008 12:32 PM

Members of the Tikkun/Sojourner community, I wonder why everybody is missing the point. It's not Sarah Palin's "experience" or the sexism of her critics which should be addressed. Seriously! the real question is, Do you want the finger of a believer in "The Last Days" on the nuclear trigger? Maybe she's lessened this fear by telling Sean Hannity she now doesn't want war with Russia (while demonizing Iran), but her meta-beliefs, or Belief itself, which need to be grilled.

Posted by: Steve Wexler | September 20, 2008 4:00 PM