Thanks, Jim - as usual, you nailed the issue on the head. I would just add that Rugy Guiliani's condescending attitude towards "community organizers" was even worse.

If anything, I would encourage people who found themselves as outraged and angered by those remarks as I found myself to be on Wednesday night to take that negative energy and transform it into something positive by becoming that much more committed to something at the community level so as to bring true change and transformation from the bottom up.

Posted by: Scott Brazil | September 5, 2008 10:55 AM

I agree with what Jim has said here but I think it would be nice if he would also say something about the people who have said similar things about small town mayors.

Posted by: brad | September 5, 2008 11:04 AM

Thanks Jim. I am impressed. You have finally taken a stand on what you believe and who you support (or oppose) instead of your usual bipartisan lip-service. Thank you.

And thank you for identifying a new should-be-protected victim group in our society--the poor 'community organizer'.

Now when we look on a sea of faces we can not only be counting the ones with more pigment, but also the community organizers in the crowd.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 11:08 AM

There was a great quote floating around the web yesterday that stated, "Mrs. Palin needs to be reminded that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor"

Posted by: Jeff | September 5, 2008 11:12 AM

Jim, Next time, you may want to point out the outrage a little quicker though... waiting for 36 hours to 'me too' the criticism of others shows that maybe you did not recognize a problem as your heard the speech yourself. That could be interpreted as being opportunistic.

In 36 hours from now will you have finally formed any comments on McCain's speech? This article seems kind of diversionary.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 11:15 AM

"Brad, I didn't hear anyone at the Democratic convention say anything negative about small-town mayors."

Obviously, since Palin wasn't the VP pick at that time.

Posted by: Brad | September 5, 2008 11:22 AM

There was a great quote floating around the web yesterday that stated, "Mrs. Palin needs to be reminded that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor"
Posted by: Jeff | September 5, 2008 11:12 AM
-------------
Jesus is the Son of God and savior of the world. not a community organizer.

And again with the vilification of those who killed Jesus. He gave is life freely as a sacrifice for our sins. No one took his life. Thank God for Jesus sacrifice.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 11:29 AM

"I would get worked up, but I guess I have too much antipathy. So, I guess I will stay in my small town and cling to my God, my religion and my guns." Armed2Win

Reading your quote gives me pause--- thank you God for big cities, diverse populations and problems. I am happy to be in a big city as the alternative has become increasingly stark.

Posted by: JamesM | September 5, 2008 11:32 AM

For whatever you have, thank a "community organizer." One such person actually led me to Christ -- Martin Luther King Jr.
Posted by: Rick | September 5, 2008 11:20 AM
----------
Rick,

I thank God for what I have, not a CO. MLK was a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Whatever organizing he did was not what saved you, it was his testimony and ministry and life.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 11:38 AM

JamesM: if you didn't see that as a play off of what Obama actually said about small town Americans, then you need to keep up with the news. It's called irony...

And Rick, he didn't apologize - he glossed over as only a smooth politician can.

Regardless, I was a bit disappointed by the attacks by many on Palin's big night - including a few of her own. Yet historically, VP's are a candidates "attack-dog", so it can be expected.

So, where is the outrage here at what has been said at the DailyKOS and other media outlets about Palin, her Down's Syndrome child and the pregnant daughter? Oh, that's right - its OK if the target is a Republican. My bad... (more irony...)

Cheers!

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | September 5, 2008 11:40 AM

Sorry, the only ones who felt "offended" were already supporting Obama, the object of her attack. The attack was retaliation for the first blow struck by Obama against small town mayors. Are you going to take Obama to task for any of his elitist or derisive remarks?

Posted by: jesse | September 5, 2008 11:45 AM

Posted by: Sally | September 5, 2008 11:41 AM
"And while the importance of these community orgaizers is without refute, I would have to argue that there are not many (if any) that have the qualifications to run the greatest country in the free world."

Sally - great comments. It's nice to see a thoughtful post actually dealing with what Palin said.

Posted by: Chris | September 5, 2008 11:52 AM

"So, where is the outrage here at what has been said at the DailyKOS and other media outlets about Palin, her Down's Syndrome child and the pregnant daughter? "

Check out Wallis' first thread about Palin. Many posters expressed outrage for the attacks against Palin's family life.

Many others made good points, however, about how inappropriate it is for her to take on the role of VP with the family issues she has to deal with. I can see both points because it is a double standard, but on the other hand, I think I also would argue that a father should not take on such a challenge with such heavy family responsibilities.

The irony, however, is that if she were a Democrat with the same family challenges, those committed to conservative family values would criticize her even more heavily than the criticism she is receiving now.

Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 11:58 AM

"The smug, Satanic hatred of some folk on here is palpable. Wow. Posted by: carl copas | September 5, 2008 11:43 AM"

Carl, my friend, that smacks of being just a wee bit (as in planetary) judgmental. Perhaps some here are utterly tired of double-standards for ALL politicians and pundits, whether right or left, conservative or liberal?

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | September 5, 2008 11:59 AM

Oh - an example of double-standard in regards to Obama's and Palin's individual treatment:

I just read that Oprah does not want to bring Gov Palin onto her show. I find this humorous. Why? First, it is sort of like censorship. Secondly, if the Democrats get their "Fairness Doctrine" in place, then Oprah would be required by law to have Palin on as a competing viewpoint.

Again, irony.

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | September 5, 2008 12:03 PM

"The irony, however, is that if she were a Democrat with the same family challenges, those committed to conservative family values would criticize her even more heavily than the criticism she is receiving now. Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 11:58 AM"

Squeaky - a palpable hit!!! Very true and I made that very comment to my wife when watching Guliani's speech. If the tables were turned, Dobson would be on the radio stating that she should be home with her kids.

Another example of an earlier comments (11:59). Anyhow, way to go in pointing that out.

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | September 5, 2008 12:08 PM

"What was Bill Clinton? A Community Whoreganizer? Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 12:09 PM"

Dude! Not cool. That comment does not elevate this conversation and takes a lot of credibility from your arguments. Plus that was over a decade ago - give it up!

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | September 5, 2008 12:13 PM

Dude! Not cool. That comment does not elevate this conversation and takes a lot of credibility from your arguments. Plus that was over a decade ago - give it up!
Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | September 5, 2008 12:13 PM
----------
A2W, DUDE! Just a joke! No one is having any fun here. Except maybe Lord Voldemort. Whose last post to Jim was AWESOME.

BTW: The truths in my arguments speak for themselves.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 12:26 PM

Oh please, have you ever known a harsh ultra-conservative to apologize for anything? That's too soft for them.

Afterall, a moose shootin', Penecostal, beauty queen doesn't need to apologize for nothin'! :)

God Bless her!

Posted by: Steve | September 5, 2008 12:33 PM

Peter S
"No Armed, this is a pretty one-sided liberal crowd at least 80% would rejoice if Christian Conservatives were wiped off the face of the earth."

Please provide statistics to support this point. You ascribe quite a bit of hatred towards non-conservative Christians, an accusation that is unfounded.

We can disagree with each other without demonizing each other. And that comment is for Carl Copas' remark, too. I agree that many comments were smug, but it is a huge stretch to characterize them as satanic, and certainly does little to promote respectful dialogue.

Posted by: Squeaky | September 5, 2008 12:34 PM

We can disagree with each other without demonizing each other.
Posted by: Squeaky | September 5, 2008 12:34 PM
---------
Then why does Jim demand an apology? I would look for Jim to come out in full support of Obama within 72 hours.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 12:40 PM

Peter--what did Jim say that was hateful or that asked for conservative Christians to be destroyed? Where does he demonize anyone?

Calling someone to task for their remarks is not demonizing them. That's all he is doing.

Your Clinton comment was deplorable, by the way. Not the kind of speech that should come from a Christian.

Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 12:54 PM

"Politicians should thank community organizers, not insult them. As a longtime organizer, I've seen time and time again that we are the ones who make government work for the poor, the powerless and the marginalized."

Why would the government thank people for reaching out to this group? The government has shown time and again that they do not want to reach out to people because they need money for their next campaign and people in need of assistance have nothing to offer.

Posted by: Greg | September 5, 2008 12:56 PM

This strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. Jibes like Palin's "community organizer" comment are common in political campaigns, and I'm sure the Democrats are more than capable of defending the record of their candidate. Just as I am sure they will make equally amusing insinuations about the Republican ticket. I would wish that political campaigns were always objective and thoughtful, but alas that doesn't seem to be the way it works, at least not in the world of the 5-second soundbite.

Posted by: Gordon | September 5, 2008 1:04 PM

Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 12:54 PM
-----
Peter--what did Jim say that was hateful or that asked for conservative Christians to be destroyed? Where does he demonize anyone?
>>I never said Jim wants that--just the extreme leftists on this blog. The tone of condescension in his article and the audacity to demand an apology from one 3rd party to another is inline with demonization of this wonderful young christian governor.
Calling someone to task for their remarks is not demonizing them. That's all he is doing.
>> that is NOT all he is doing. he is clearly in the tank for Obama and is being intellectually dishonest about that.

Your Clinton comment was deplorable, by the way. Not the kind of speech that should come from a Christian.
>>I say that a lot of speech on this forum should not be coming from a Christian, greatest of which this faux-outraged article to begin with. It probably was a cheap-shot, but I really was just trying to be funny. Sorry to offend all the Clinton fans.

Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 12:54 PM

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 1:08 PM

Peter,

As a proud liberal why don't you take responsibility for your own thoughts and prove yourself wrong? why should I have to do the heavy lifting for you?

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 5, 2008 1:10 PM

Peter,
As a proud liberal why don't you take responsibility for your own thoughts and prove yourself wrong? why should I have to do the heavy lifting for you?
p
Posted by: Payshun | September 5, 2008 1:10 PM
--------
I'm not a liberal. What gave you that idea? Just ask Squeaky, Don, or any of the other regulars.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 1:17 PM

I did find it hard to vote for McCain since he has always been a moderate and has always worked with the Dems. But Palin has been great. I'm now looking forward to voting for McCain/Palin.

Which is precisely what he put Palin on the ticket -- to do the dirty work he can't or won't to get such people to vote for him.

I say that a lot of speech on this forum should not be coming from a Christian, greatest of which this faux-outraged article to begin with.

So anything that criticizes conservatives' positions or actions is somehow "un-Christian?" Talk about being touchy, let alone hypocritical! Conservatives have been skewering their opponents with impunity since the early 1980s, and they have the gall to get huffy when someone gives it back to them? Truth be told, Wallis's entry was actually pretty mild in comparison.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 1:19 PM

"What speech within the faux-outraged article is not befitting of a Christian?"
Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 1:19 PM
---------
The title for one, then the whole premise for two. When you look at it in the context of knowing Jim's affinity for Obama and his history of work for the DNC it is clear that he is acting in surrogate-attack for benefit of Obama. That is unchristian, dishonest and should be pointed out. The Communist Party of America has no problem voicing support for Obama, why should Jim Wallis?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 1:31 PM

Michael--thanks for your sensitive response about Clinton.

What paper are you getting?! It sounds like a very left-wing rag, and not worth your time! I haven't heard any such language in mainstream media, and don't spend any time with the fringe media, where, apparently the more vitriolic attacks are coming from. Not worth anyone's time, if you ask me.

Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 1:37 PM

"Jesus was a community organizer? What community exactly?" Connie
The disciples were a community.
Posted by: JamesM | September 5, 2008 1:37 PM
----

That is a stretch. But anyway Jesus did not run for President.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 1:42 PM

To those in the remaining 20% if you would like to sound off and prove my 80/20 split wrong please do.

Posted by: Peter S.

Peter this site can be pretty nasty at times . The double standards , and the rooted hatred of Bible believing Christians who have not the humanistic world view injections.
Like Wallis being concerned about the organizer remark . The comments directed at the Jesus FreaK Palin, and her family, her state , her life's work went completly un noticed . he is looking at the issue as how a partsian looks at an issue, that promotes his political cause . As if he grieves for political community organizers feelings . If they are liberal he does maybe.

Putting the name of Jesus on it is more insulting then the community organizer hit .

But both sides do it . I notice more here, the humanistic approach to dealing with the poverty issue , or other issues .

The concern about the causes are never considered to be self inflicted , sin . That someone else is always at fault. And of course those people are in politics and side with your political beliefs . If not you yourself which gets stated also . Always a great open for intellectual exchange .

And of course we have a few who always hated you , but prove their un bias by saying they use to be republican , but now support socialism . They of course are pro life also , like I am pro wrestling . Just a few million other things are more important .

You can't help take away poverty with out stopping the cause of poverty and also reaching out to help those physically in it . Its spirtual and physical . To Christians it seems logical , it gets much debate here . You mocked here for it , because race is involved you are limited to comments of being ignorant or racist .

And of course if you have eneough and explode in anger or frustration , unlike liberals , you will be banned .

I have heard worse dergoratory comments about other people on conservatibe sites , and liberal sites . I have never seen Christians mock other Christians and their motives so pathetically in the name of cheap politics as from this place though .

Posted by: Michael | September 5, 2008 1:53 PM

Fully agree. And while she is at it she should also apologise for the line "Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?" America has lost great standing and moral influence in the world due to its failure to respect human rights in the context of the war on terror. More of this will only harm America further. Her speech was disgraceful in many ways.

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

After reading all of the hateful attacks on Jim Wallis, I went back and reread his original post to attempt to learn what brought them on. I detected no partisan motives. What he did was to review a portion of her speech and put it into the context of those community organizers who have been personally offended by what she said.

Look, when you give a speech, you need to be held accountable for what you say - even when what you say was written for you. So when you deliberately denigrate someone's job, you are not just putting down the person you wish to criticize - you are also putting down everyone else who is doing that job.

Now, maybe McCain and Palin are not particularly concerned about the community organizer vote. But if that was my vocation, or if I were one of the millions of people whose lot had been improved by the actions of community organizers, I would consider carefully their remarks before I cast my vote for them.

Jim was right and fair in his remarks, letting a Republican community organizer speak for himself. What profession will the Republicans go after next?

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 5, 2008 2:05 PM

Oh my GOSH! Squeaky, this IS the Fringe Media!!!!! and you are here all the time!

Yawn.

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 2:07 PM

Funny, Peter S, that you accuse "liberals" here of hatemongering, inflammatory language, and demonizing of Sarah Palin, yet it is you who feel compelled to load your comments with words in all caps and multiple exclamation marks.

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 2:17 PM

"Yawn."
Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 2:07 PM

Good morning Don. Why don't you give an opinion and something proactive instead of piping in with a "snarky" comment as some like to say.

Posted by: peter S. | September 5, 2008 2:21 PM

This outrage over the line about community organizers is over the top. It was a joke aimed at Obama's qualifications, a decent point in fact.

It was not really a hit at all community organizers. I didn't take it that way, nor would most thinking people. Just like people who scoff at Palin's PTA experience as a qualification to be VP would not be scoffing at everyone who has ever worked in the PTA.

I'm interested in the discussions of political and government philosophy and policy that really matter. Both conventions did what conventions do, rally the troops. Now we can only hope for substantive discussions, even from God's Politics (which is more what even those of us who disagree with him, have come to expect from Jim Wallis).

Posted by: G. Bruce | September 5, 2008 2:32 PM

Peter--Michael's post was actually in support of your comments.

Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 2:36 PM

CAPS WERE FOR EMPHASIS NOT HATE!!!

Caps are evidence of comments from someone who is reacting emotionally, not thinking critically.

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 2:40 PM

G. Bruce
"Just like people who scoff at Palin's PTA experience as a qualification to be VP would not be scoffing at everyone who has ever worked in the PTA."

Very few people who are members of a PTA would think that experience qualifies them to be vice president.

Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 2:44 PM

Don--I appreciate your 2:39 post. Well put and well analyzed.

As a person who uses caps every now and then for emphasis...I can't agree with your assessment of the use of caps...I know context matters, but if I agree, I am indicting my own use of the cap.

Actually, I use them because I can't figure out how to post using any other means to provide emphasis. I"m sure there is some button to click...but because of the power behind the cap, I try to use them sparingly when making a point. It is strange how caps look like were are shouting, while italics and bold print are generally interpreted as emphasis, as intended.

Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 2:52 PM

Squeaky, I have also occasionally used caps as well, for emphasis. As a former typographer and one who teaches document design and layout, occasional use of caps (one or two words at a time) will not convey shouting or emotional tone. But a whole line or sentence in all caps, ending with multiple exclamation points, will.

To use italics and bold print on this forum, one must use HTML tags--there's no keystroke or combination that I know of that will do it. I would show you the tags, but you might not be able to see them after my comment is posted. (You might be able to see them by selecting View:Source from your browser's View menu.)

Peter, I was actually trying to stay away from this food fight; I didn't enter it just to rebuke you. I can only do this so much, you know. But having said that, I agree with letjusicerolldown, who from the very beginning was asking folks to do some breathing exercises.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 3:00 PM

"a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities." this seems to be objectively offensive to community organizers and saying that they don't have "actual responsibilities." why is it so hard to acknowledge this, apologize, and move on? we all mess up, but we forgive each other when we acknowledge the wrong & are contrite.

Posted by: nad2 | September 5, 2008 3:03 PM

I 'was' shouting Squeaky. I was saying to look out! Danger. You are not getting the whole picture!

Translation: You can't be getting the whole picture, because you still disagree!

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 3:09 PM

Mr Wallis -

I will consider sending a note to Gov. Palin about an apology only when BHO gives an apology to me and others like me who are gun owning, Bible believing Christians who are just trying to pay their taxes and make our communities a little better than when we moved in.

Blesssings to all!
.

Posted by: big guy | September 5, 2008 3:10 PM

Oh, almost forgot to mention: Palin's comments were mainly directed at Obama's experiences, in which the resuts were rather nebulous. I doubt she was speaking of Jim Wallis or his friends.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 5, 2008 3:14 PM

Apparently there is some kind of computer glitch that removed my earlier comment, so I'll repost a shorter version:
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 5, 2008 3:11 PM
----
LV: IT HAS BEEN DELETED!!! I saw those comments and commented on them!! .....

"Except maybe Lord Voldemort. Whose last post to Jim was AWESOME.
BTW: The truths in my arguments speak for themselves.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 12:26 PM

It was a long letter, I saw it. WHO IS DELETING POSTS???

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 3:20 PM

LV: you started the letter by asking if Jim was trying to throw the election.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 3:24 PM

LV, i think bringing up this point is a way for people of good conscience, obama supporters or otherwise, to say that we want the leaders of our country to run a respectful campaign and not belittle the efforts of those in the faith communities & elsewhere who are out working in the vineyard of the lord (and also to tell them it's ok to apologize if they mess up).

Posted by: nad2 | September 5, 2008 3:25 PM

Wow....after all the crap that was thrown at Sarah by everyone..this is what the author comes up with????? Yeah....ok....desperation is really hitting hard....

Posted by: Casey | September 5, 2008 3:35 PM

Peter this site can be pretty nasty at times. The double standards, and the rooted hatred of Bible believing Christians who have not the humanistic world view injections.

That remark is purely hateful, slanderous and poisonous in its own right.

What else do you think this is? All Jim talks about is Politics!!! Not pure articles of instruction on God or Jesus--all tied in some way to how the american political structure should change in favor of his theology.

Uh, Peter -- if you haven't noticed, this blog is called "God's Politics." That should give you a hint about what's being discussed here.

Posted by: Rick | September 5, 2008 3:43 PM

Jim, I was also enraged when I heard that laugh-line in her speech. It's one thing to take on your opponent, another to put down a whole class of those who do some of the most thankless tasks in our society. I suppose we now know what matters most to her and the Republicans. She does owe an apology, but then you have to remember that she was pandering to a segment of the population for whom the closest thing to a community organizer is the private security guard at their gated community.

Posted by: Russ Eanes | September 5, 2008 3:57 PM

My, my! As I read the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there exists a clear difference which I would choose to discribe as The Pax Romanum (Peace of Caesar and Pilate or Roman Pagan Rule) and The Peace Vobiscum (Pece of Christ).

I have to wonder aloud, to my 58 year old, Progressive-Born-Again-Christian self but here in this all too public blog, which Peace of the two, is being advanced in response to Jim's writing?

But please, I would beg everyone: leave my retorical question alone. Thank a lot! Have a nice day.

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

Uh, Peter -- if you haven't noticed, this blog is called "God's Politics." That should give you a hint about what's being discussed here.
Posted by: Rick | September 5, 2008 3:43 PM
-----------
That was exactly my point.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 4:02 PM

That was exactly my point.

So, what's your beef? This blog is not called "God's Theology."

Posted by: Rick | September 5, 2008 4:11 PM

I have all the respect in the world for Jim. I am friends with a mutual friend, Mary Ann, and have met him, and his beautiful wife, a couple of times at her parties. That is how I found out about his fine magazine. I disagree with his criticism though. First, you must remember that her speech, as were Obama's, was written by a professional speech writer. I don't think it was fair to imply that Obama's organizing was comparable to the example given by Jim. Just what did Obama organize? I note that Jim did not say. I think one of the purposes of the comments was to give attention to the fact that being an organizer seems to be the primary "entry' on Obama's resume. That certainly doesn't qualify one to be president of out great country. Nor does promising to take (steal) the earnings of others by discriminating against those who are the most successful. Obama does not seem to want to encourage our citizens to take advantage of the endless opportunities to succeed in our great country. Instead, he wants the government to do it all. i started working in the sixth grade and never quit, completing 19 years of education, with no college loans.(because I worked at numerous part time jobs and attended school full time. I never though about asking the government for help. Obama is the one who has numerous apologies to make. Most often he insults our intelligence.

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

Actually Jack Obama wrote his speech. He made that very clear before he delivered it.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 5, 2008 4:28 PM

Folks, I guess I should apologize for my personal attacks against Jim toward the beginning of this thread. But I still stand by my opinions on the issues, I'll just try to state them minus character assassination. Truce?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 4:32 PM

I had heard this, and I felt bad about it. No matter what the underlying reasons are for saying something like this about community organizers. No one can deminish the hardwork and "actual responsibilities" community organizers do have and what they stand for and who they represent in the world when they are out in the world, working and helping people re-build their lives in whatever they need rebuilding with physically, emotionally and spiritually. Especially when the majority of these folks are volunteers. I was taken back when I heard this. If people would just look around at the work the genuien "community organizers" do to try and alleviate suffering of people in the world instead of self promoting their own self worth as a politician and this goes for democrats as well as republican leaders, maybe they would think before they spoke. All I do is pray that God will give us a leader who will have a heart for the all the people in the world who need love and support with whatever their needs are.

Posted by: Lu | September 5, 2008 4:37 PM

The Governor's comments were NOT against Community Organizers -- she was reacting to the attack from Obama against small towns and their mayors.

It is really grasping at straws to try to smear the Governor with this, since it was Obama who started tearing down the work of hard-working Americans with that awful e-mail denigrating the work of mayors of small towns.

We're not talking about the job itself standing alone -- we're talking about 'how does the job equip one to be President of this Nation.'

NO COMPARISON! Compare this job description to a Community Organizer (which is quite often a VOLUNTEER position, not a career line):

Acts as the Chief Executive of
the City’s Executive Department
• Prepares the City Budget
• Approves or vetoes legislation
submitted by the City Council
• Appoints the Chief of Police*
and members of the Police
Commissioners Board*
• Appoints the Fire Chief* and
the members of the Fire
Commissioners Board*
• Appoints City Commissioners,*
Board Members,* City
Department and Bureau heads*
• Oversees harbor, airports and the
Department of Water and Power
• Oversees the Mayor’s Office of
Immigrant Affairs, the Mayor’s
Office of Economic Development,
and the Los Angeles Office of
International Trade
• Oversees City contracting
• Coordinates the City’s emergency
response activities

One of the most important responsibilities that
the mayor has is to create the City’s budget.
Every year the mayor prepares a proposed
budget for the coming fiscal year which is
submitted to the City Council for amendments
and approval. The City’s budget is made up of
money collected from a variety of sources
including taxes, fees, and fines as well as funds
from other city departments and government
agencies. These different sources of money
are categorized as “restricted” and “unrestricted”
funds. Restricted funds can only be spent on
specified services and programs. Unrestricted
funds can be spent on any city service or program.

NO COMPARISON. Without bias, using intellect only and putting Country First (not Party First) -- which job would more readily prepare one to be Vice President?

And these are just some of the small-town Mayor's job descriptions. . . . Sarah Palin was/is also GOVERNOR Palin!

NO COMPARISON! And Obama attacked first, and Governor Palin's answer was very valid, very necessary, and very restrained under the circumstances.

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

I belong to a BB related to my profession. There is one person who continually makes hateful remarks and does not tolerate any opinion different than her own. I have come to believe that there are people of every profession and persuasion who like to disagree and argue in the faceless realm of cyberspace. This is "God's Blog" not "I'm going to go after anyone who disagrees with me and has a different faith blog" Jesus doesn't appreciate sarcastic rude remarks any more than he appreciates profanity or calling his other children names. Even Jesus' disciples disagreed on things but I can't think of anywhere in scripture where Jesus tolerated rude remarks because of disagreements.

Posted by: HelenLee | September 5, 2008 4:51 PM

I belong to a BB related to my profession. There is one person who continually makes hateful remarks and does not tolerate any opinion different than her own. I have come to believe that there are people of every profession and persuasion who like to disagree and argue in the faceless realm of cyberspace. This is "God's Blog" not "I'm going to go after anyone who disagrees with me and has a different faith blog" Jesus doesn't appreciate sarcastic rude remarks any more than he appreciates profanity or calling his other children names. Even Jesus' disciples disagreed on things but I can't think of anywhere in scripture where Jesus tolerated rude remarks because of disagreements.

Posted by: HelenLee | September 5, 2008 4:52 PM

Peter S., I appreciate your humility, as one who has also occasionally written things with more bite than necessary. You'll find this is a pretty forgiving crowd and it would be refreshing to see apologies such as yours occur more often. Hope you'll stick around, and your apology is a good reminder that sometimes some of the rest of us need to tone things down.

Posted by: I and I | September 5, 2008 4:54 PM

I think that what has prompted all of the vitriol from the so-called Christian Right on this site is that they cannot fathom the reality that I and many Christians like me have seen through the phoniness and hypocrisy of the Republican Party. We have become tired of sitting in our pews and listening to our pastors take sides in the political battles. We have become frustrated and even angry at times to hear people say that our faith compels us to vote a certain way. No more!

We have not abandoned our faith but we have walked out of those churches that inundated us with Republican propaganda and tried to lead us to believe that we weren't really saved. I believe that Jim has steered clear of partisan politics, but he has offered us a refuge just as the new churches that we have found offers us isolation from the same old Republican mantra.

If you have been attracted to this site because you need spiritual encouragement, then I would advise you to resume your daily Bible reading, prayer, or even publications like 'Our Daily Bread." I am frankly very surprised at the caustic remarks posted here, and I have been equally offensive on some of my posts. From now until November, I intend to advocate strongly for Obama/Biden because I believe they are best qualified to lead our country out of its present morass.

Jeremiah 9:23-24 - This is what the Lord says: Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches. but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice, and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight, declares the Lord.

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 5, 2008 4:58 PM

LAE writes
"Obama made that bitter statement in an attempt to be sympathetic with the people of these parts... but Hillary in her quest to beat him made something more out of it... and it just took off after that... partly because some people wanted to believe that about him. However, I don't believe Obama is a mean spirited person that would deliberately make fun of poor people. He was one himself at one time."

I don't think anyone seriously accused Obama of being mean spirited, but many rural voters, myself included, found his comments to be quite condescending and demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of the issues that matter to rural voters. In Obama's defense, there are very few politicians that understand or respect the rural experience. Sarah Palin is, in part, such a strong pick because she has actually lived it and doesn't yet appear to be out of touch with her roots.

Russ writes:
"She does owe an apology, but then you have to remember that she was pandering to a segment of the population for whom the closest thing to a community organizer is the private security guard at their gated community."

I'm not sure whether that was a serious analysis of Palin's speech or just a cheap shot at the Republicans, but I would suggest that Palin's speech was targeting the blue collar men that voted for Hillary in the primary. Go into any small town barber shop and ask about community organizing. Chances are you'll have to explain what it is, and then defend it. Before I become the target of all the attacks on this blog I want to say these aren't all my opinions, but people percieve Obama's community organizing as a waste of time and resources; and, perhaps more importantly, community organizing is not something that real men do. Again, that isn't my view, but Palin's speech specifically targeted that audience and it's likely that they will be key to deciding the election.

Just another thought: I can't stand how either McCain or Obama portray their service as though they were just volunteering. It was a career for each of them, and no more important than what anyone else does to support their family.

Posted by: J.P. | September 5, 2008 4:59 PM

Folks, I guess I should apologize for my personal attacks against Jim toward the beginning of this thread. But I still stand by my opinions on the issues, I'll just try to state them minus character assassination. Truce?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 4:32 PM
------
I did not write this. There is an impostor here. I may apologize but I would never say "Truce?"

I was already on to Jim's newest post at that time. Boo Impostor.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 5:02 PM

Payshun -

It's flawed because of the obvious anachronism.

Posted by: Gordon | September 5, 2008 5:09 PM

"NO COMPARISON. Without bias, using intellect only and putting Country First (not Party First) -- which job would more readily prepare one to be Vice President?

And these are just some of the small-town Mayor's job descriptions. . . . Sarah Palin was/is also GOVERNOR Palin!

NO COMPARISON! And Obama attacked first, and Governor Palin's answer was very valid, very necessary, and very restrained under the circumstances."

I am so glad you said that.

you really don't know what community organizers do do you? I was one so I can tell you what we did.

Community organizers work alongside local, state, and federal leaders to get the people that volunteer for all the things you mentioned Sarah Palin was responsible for. Without them Sarah would not be able to do her job. They are the backbone of this democracy.

I also realize that conservatives are not really good at reaching out to the urban poor but attacking community organizers is not the brightest way to go. They are our heroes. You ignore their roles and responsibilities at your party's peril.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 5, 2008 5:16 PM

Not exactly -- it was about Pennsylvania, to be sure, but he made those remarks in San Francisco -- at a private fund-raiser with a bunch of high rollers. Truth be told, Hillary probably would have won Pennsylvania handily even had he not said that; outside of Philly it's a pretty conservative state with not many racial minorities.

Not true Rick. Obama was at a rally making a stomp speech when he made this statement (shown on tv), and the fact is most people knew he did not mean that in the context Hillary Clinton said he meant it. Nonetheless that whole guns and bitter statement took off like wild fire, and he became the party elitist. Secondly if Pennsylvania is such a conservative state why does this state usually vote democratic? I think what you meant was that Pennsylvania is mainly a white supremist state... it has nothing to do with being conservative or democratic.

Posted by: LAE | September 5, 2008 5:26 PM

Payshun, with all due respect, according to your esteemed description of mayors and community organizers, OBAMA WOULD BE WORKING FOR PALIN.

Now, do you understand why it was such an insult for him to actually write an e-mail disparaging her work as a mayor?

All she was saying was, if being a mayor did not qualify her for VP, how could being a community organizer qualify one to be PRESIDENT?

And, according to your description of the two jobs, it seems she was right, that it is, ultimately, the MAYOR who has the ultimate responsibility, not those who work for the Mayor.

The buck stops with the top, not with the worker bees, no matter how great their work is. The greatest responsibility lies with the one at the top. Right?

Posted by: Sami | September 5, 2008 5:31 PM

Sami,

Yes it does but she still can't do the work without the worker bees which was my point. I think you are missing that. The work and her inability to do her job falls on her choices to delegate which is why she would be responsible for that. But the workers and the people that make that happen are the organizers. She would fail without them. She needs them more than they need her.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 5, 2008 5:42 PM

"There was no such thing as a "community organizer" in the 1st-century Roman world. Indeed, given the duties you described above, had there been, they would have been crucified. But the duties you describe make no sense in the life of Christ -"

Well let's start with that last part. You are wrong about that. They do make sense in the life of Christ and I would think I would not need to explain why.

Actually Jews did work alongside Romans in any number of capacities for a bunch of different reasons. Look at King Herod and his building projects. Had he not sought out Caesar's support in establishing his kingdom then the new temple would never have been built.

The High Priest was the spiritual head of the Jewish people and guess what? He was installed by the Romans. Roman and Jewish authorities would and did work with anyone that would help them to maintain the Jewish state. This structure included tax collectors... That's why the Jews were so angry. They were being over taxed, exploited, abused and trampled upon and in many cases by their own people.

Sami,
I mentioned only one form of organizing. There are plenty that don't fit what I defined above and they follow in the mold of the prophets... to say that Jesus wasn't a community organizer is to ignore what he did. he did organize communities beginning with his own. he then went on to build up a Samaritan community with the first ever evangelist (the woman at the well.)

The thing about community organizers is that the mayor doesn't hire or fire them. they are in many instances volunteer positions. If anything they represent the will of the community they serve. That community is still the boss of the mayor whether they voted for the incumbent mayor or not.

I hope you understand that.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 5, 2008 5:58 PM

Sami--read LAE's 4:29 comments.

Obama has much more experience than being "just" a community organizer. And much more total experience that Palin. He's more prepared in every sense of the word, from his education, to his work in the state senate and the US senate, where he has worked with senators from all over the country and knows and understands how they work and what their concerns are.

As for her experience as a mayor of a small town--all of those activities are important and gave her great experience as a first step towards gaining enough experience to eventually become president--after she gains more than less than two years experience as a governor.

I know these responsibilities are important even for mayors of small towns...but I doubt there are many mayors of small towns who would think they were ready to be vice president, no matter how many years they served in that position.

Compare her to Gulianni. The jobs and qualifications are the same, right? But Guilianni's position was far more complex than hers ever could have been. There is no comparison. So why wasn't Gulianni chosen? In fact, every candidate McCain ran against is far, far more qualified than Palin. Why weren't they chosen ahead of her?

Would you really feel secure if she became president? That is a very real possibility, you know. If it happened, that experience she has gained as mayor and governor would seem quite the pittance, even to her.

Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 6:18 PM

So then, Payshun, Herod and the tax collectors were community organizers?

Posted by: Gordon | September 5, 2008 6:41 PM

Obama's life doesn't fit with his rhetoric. When he was involved with community organizing, he was using the standard he had learned from Saul Alinsky -- and I find that scary, and not a thing like Jesus.

The Obamas haven't done one thing to benefit the poor since they have become millionaires. There is NO volunteer/charity work being done by either of them. They used the help of a criminal in Chicago to buy a mansion that was beyond their means. They gave LESS THAN 1% to charity, and that even includes their tithe to their 20-year membership in their church.

Twenty years ago, Cindy McCain had children the ages of Michelle's children now -- but she still found the time to volunteer to help in her community and around the world. It was 18 years ago that she was helping out with Mother Theresa's Orphanage in Bangladesh (a place where disease is rampant and visiting and working there is both dangerous and extremely uncomfortable) - and yet Cindy was there giving of herself and her means, and she even brought home two of those orphans to raise here in the U.S.

What has Michelle ever done for those whom the Obama's claim to have such empathy?

They don't want to put their own money where their mouths are -- they want YOUR money to do their work for them, while they live as Rev. Wright does: A $1.6 Million Dollar mansion with a $10 million dollar line of credit.

Obama says 'You are your brother's keeper', while his OWN brother lives in squalor and poverty, on less than $1.00 a month. He says Obama has never offered him a penny.

Obama is worse than a hypocrite -- he is using Jesus' words to us, to try to get himself elected, while not following those tenets himself.

Posted by: Sami | September 5, 2008 6:42 PM

Obama is worse than a hypocrite -- he is using Jesus' words to us, to try to get himself elected, while not following those tenets himself.

Are you Obama's judge, Sami? Your entire post is nothing but anti-Obama talking points. If you want to convince Obama supporters on this blog, you will have to do much better than repeat such nonsense.

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 6:51 PM

Yes, we should be focusing on the issues, but we've already endured 8 years of leaders who rarely apologize for offenses they've caused in both word and deed.
Civility does matter!

Posted by: J. Young | September 5, 2008 6:55 PM

For what it's worth, my husband (retired Air Force) doesn't think McCain or Obama will bring change. He does thing Palin will. He sees the other two as politicians, but Palin as something new and fresh.

Maybe his mother ran the house much more than I thought. Maybe my husband see experience as a bad thing when we need a change. I don't know. But I wonder if he's alone.

So, would Jesus, go on for hours about what this woman said, or that man said? He had a pit-bull side to him too, and made no apologies for going after the leaders of the day with sharp words.

Posted by: U TOO | September 5, 2008 7:01 PM

How anyone cannot see the flagrant hypocrisy in Obama's empty words with no action to back them up, is beyond my comprehension.

Well, it's easy to see that kind of thing if that's all one is looking for. You've made it quite clear that you aren't looking for anything else--you had your mind made up long ago.

Where's your evidence that Michelle has done nothing for the community? Where's your evidence that Barack Obama has abandoned his brother? Give me hard facts; don't repeat something you heard from Rush or Hannity.

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 7:34 PM

Herod was an Idumean tyrant. Characterizing him as a community organizer is, I assume, a joke?

Posted by: Gordon | September 5, 2008 7:47 PM

Anyone who would vote for McCain/Palin is a joke.

Posted by: Eric | September 5, 2008 7:53 PM

I'm not Obama's judge any more than Jim Wallis is Governor Palin's judge.

Sami, there's a big difference between your accusing Obama using Jesus' words but not trying to follow him (a motivation of the heart that only God can know for sure) and Rev. Wallis' criticism of Gov. Palin for words she said that demeaned the work of community activists (actual things she said that one can check up on--and evidence of real people who were offended by what she said). You are claiming you know Obama's hypocrisy and can declare it. That's judgmental. Rev. Wallis isn't judging Gov. Palin, he's only asking her to apologize for a demonstrable offense that she caused.

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 7:59 PM

Is this a "Christian" blog? Am I understanding correctly when I see "Christians" defending and associating the likes and 'accomplishments' of Barack Obama to that of CHRIST?? I am sorry people, but that is borderline BLASPHEMY!!

How could any Christian support a man that supports Gay Marriage, Gay rights, and Abortion (especially partial birth abortion)? You are sitting here with your blinders on debating about some correographed political speech and twisting it into something it was not meant to be. Why? Because you felt personally assaulted by a comment directed at a political adversary. Get over it. It was not intended to personally "belittle" you "devout" Christians.

You people want to tout your accomplishments and hold yourself in high esteem because you provided some time as "community organizers." Ask yourselves this one question, "Did you do what you did for others, for yourself or for God?" If it was truly of the "heart," then you would not care what anyone said about your service and you would not seek personal acknowledgement(Did Christ care? Did Christ seek worldly recognition?). The only recognition a true servant seeks is that which comes from our awesome God and Father.

May God forgive you! I pray that you truly repent of your outlandish sin and seek the Saviour's feet in humble and honest contrition!

aland

Posted by: AlanD | September 5, 2008 8:09 PM

Dear AlanD,

I'm supporting Senator Obama. I would hesitate to say that I'm a "devout Christian" but I will admit that I'm a sinner saved by grace.

Palin's speech may have been "correographed", but she still read it and so I think that she can be held responsible for its content. I have been a community organizer, and I feel personally offended by what she said.

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 5, 2008 8:29 PM

May God forgive you! I pray that you truly repent of your outlandish sin and seek the Saviour's feet in humble and honest contrition!

May God forgive you, AlanD, for your hate-filled, judgmental comments against Senator Obama and those Christians who support his candidacy.

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 8:33 PM

Is this a "Christian" blog? Am I understanding correctly when I see "Christians" defending and associating the likes and 'accomplishments' of Barack Obama to that of CHRIST?? I am sorry people, but that is borderline BLASPHEMY!!
Posted by: AlanD | September 5, 2008 8:10 PM
---
Alan, This is an christian left blog. Most followers of Jim Wallis think that the US government taxing it citizens and giving the money to poor of the US and the world somehow trumps the traditional Christian values of pro-life and hetero-marriage. Do some research on Jim Wallis re Marxism and you will find that he once said that he wished everyone saw the world through Karl Marx' eyes. He supported Kerry in 2004 and speaks highly of Obama all the time.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 8:53 PM

re: Posted by: | September 5, 2008 8:53 PM
That was me...sorry.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 9:03 PM

OK--I guess you got me there...
...For example:
All the folks at MSNBC
Bill O'Reilly
Rush Limbaugh
Ann Coultier
Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 2:06 PM
--------
Thanks for the humility. I hope that I am humble sometimes too. Those guys are admittedly biased and do not hide it except maybe for MSNBC--I have not seen them admit that they are liberal except maybe Keith Oberman.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 9:20 PM

Actually, I think Don's response was rather a mild response for someone who had just been accused of blasphemy.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 5, 2008 9:06 PM
----------
Sister, Surely you can understand how someone who supports abortion-rights and claims Christianity could be seen by some as blasphemous. The Catholic Church and most major Protestant denominations consider abortion to be a sin.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 9:28 PM

Sara, Be careful about evoking CS Lewis around here he was anti-pacifist.

"According to Lewis, pacifism fails to persuade on every level of moral judgment: facts, intuition, reasoning, and authority. For many modern Christians, there are two pertinent facts: War is evil, and war is necessary."
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-03-045-f

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 9:37 PM

The action was to Ask Gov. Sarah Palin to increase funding for the program which is currently underfunded.
Posted by: Pastor Dan | September 5, 2008 9:29 PM

So the Governor should accommodate every request for taxpayer money? I'm sure there are facts missing on both sides of your blurb.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 9:44 PM

Am I the only person who is uncomfortable with the phrase, "America first," or "Country first?" It seems the entire witness of the Law, the Prophets, the Wisdom Tradition, and culminating in life and words of Jesus make clear that GOD is FIRST, nothing else, ever. It seems to me that it was those who cried, "Rome, first," who crucified Jesus. I'm sure that Governor Palin believes that God is on the side of wars and bridges and all manner of things with all her heart, but I would simply hope that voters (and believers) might add a touch of humility, biblical honesty, and theology to their beliefs.

John Beddingfield
http://beddingfield.blogspot.com/

Posted by: John Beddingfield | September 5, 2008 10:03 PM

The politics of this smear campaign against Obama has made me quite disillusioned. As a Christian Im embarrassed and saddened that many evangelical christian would continue to support a ticket that blatantly distorts and outright lie.

Posted by: Rick | September 5, 2008 10:32 PM

Judgmental comments...the Bible says that we are to judge. Please recall what Christ said to John in Revelation 2:20-24 about judging. Christ rebuked the church of Thyatira for NOT judging a woman who was a false teacher and prophetess, and who was sinning. If I judge you by any other means than the Word of God, then I am a fool and destined to be equally judged and punished by my Father.

Now my brothers and sisters,I ask if supporting a person (including John McCain) that not only approves of abortion and gay marriage, but has legislated for it not contrary to the Word of God? Who has the right to put to death that which God created and declare behavior that is a deliberate abomination to God as acceptable?

Sister Marie...Please reread my comment about blasphemy and "judge" me rightly. Did I accuse anyone of blasphemy? No...I stated that I felt (obviously my opinion since I wrote it) it was "borderline blasphemy." Also, my comment was not directed at any individual...hmmm...kinda opposite of Mrs. Pavin's comment, huh.

Peter S...hate-filled? Is that a righteous judgment? When is expressing and upholding the Word of God an expression of hate? Again I turn to the Bible, did not God say that He "hated" sin? Do you think that was a hate-filled statement. Nope, or at least I hope you do not believe that...God was expressing His "attitude" toward sin. Again, to speak out against something that is against the expressed Word of God is not hate, but love. Do you think I would care as much if this were not a "Christian" blog? No, but then again I pray for the lost and the disenfranchised of this world. We are not held to the same standards as the lost are we? No, we are set aside and separate from the world. Thank God for His mercy and Grace!

Your words and attitudes were what upset me because there was no thought given to Godly discernment. As Christians, are we not to ensure that our actions are in concert with our Creator?

If my words brought anger to your consciousness, then maybe your spirit is feeling conviction. You confuse righteous judgment as condemnation. I am not condemning you. That is not my God given duty on this earth, but I am required by God to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord. If you mistakenly took my words of rebuke as condemnation, I apologize in that I obviously was not quite eloquent enough in my heartfelt expression. I am no less a sinner than you. My anger was not personally directed at any of you and I do not claim to know your true hearts, but a person will be "judged" by their fruit and fruit that is produced contrary to the teaching of Christ is either unripe or seedless. I am yet a babe in Christ, but I do know that there are others out there who may be newborns. Being thus, they are quite impressionable. Many of the words written here could turn them away from the faith. Can you picture a very young Christian in the faith reading here something contrary to what they read in God's Word? God said, "Thou shalt not kill," (that is, to kill the innocent) yet they read the thoughts and words of Christians that espout praise and justification on men that believe "killing innocent babies" through abortion is justified.

Please forgive my brashness. I did not mean to offend anyone, but after reading what I read, I had to speak out. You know, Jesus got quite angry when the temple was being desecrated. Not only did He turn over their tables and stands, but He also chased the offenders out. Do you think He hated those people? Nope...they were the ones He came to this earth to save. He was angry with the sin and not the sinner. If that wasn't so, then why would He ask His Father to forgive them as He hung from the Cross?

It is not my intent to change you, but to plant a seed that the Holy Spirit will tend and nurture.

And yes, I will still pray for you.

Aland

Posted by: aland | September 5, 2008 10:55 PM

It is clear that the Palin nomination was intended to divert attention from McCain and his 90% support of the Bush policies and to win over all the knee-jerk conservatives (including those writing in here) to support the McCain about whom many of them had had doubts. We know now that Ms. Palin has put out lots of nasty innuendoes, half-truths and even lies, and the media is having a feeding frenzy exposing these. But the best advice I heard all day is that we should not waste time attacking the monkey but rather the organ grinder.

Posted by: Richard Pierard | September 5, 2008 11:11 PM

Jesus' down-to-earth advice and example of conflict resolution, sharing, peace-building, and caring for "the least of these" is probably the best resource for "community organising" even today. See Dave Andrews' "Not Religion But Love" for how he brought Jesus into conflict resolution in his community. At first Dave would just remark "that was the kind of solution Jesus would suggest" - to the surprise and amusement of his mostly non-Christian community - and eventually these Christlike solutions became so common that the community - still mostly non-Christian - was using "what would Jesus do" as their first instinct in conflict situations.

Regardless of whether you want to call him a community organiser, when Jesus was on earth there was definitely a strong social/community aspect to Jesus' ministry. See what Tony Dickinson and others have said (he also established community programmes like the common purse). He came to usher in the kingdom of God - not to preach from a pedestal of "actual responsibilities" without getting his hands dirty.

"But anyway Jesus did not run for President."
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 1:42 PM

I'm not sure what bizzare point you were trying to make with this comment (that Jesus wasn't "qualified" to be president because he was "only" the Son of God and a community organiser??), but I think we can actually learn something important from it. Jesus was offered all the kingdoms of the world (by the devil!), and the people were expecting and hoping him to be a political leader, but he shunned the opportunity.

"You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Palin clearly didn't have this verse at the front of her mind when she made her comments about community organisers. But then again, maybe Obama needs to hear this kind of message too. If he was more like Jesus, he would probably still be an anonymous community organiser today (and as Jim pointed out, doing a lot more good than politicians), rather than seeking glory and authority by sinking to the level of petty politickers like Palin.

Posted by: Caleb | September 5, 2008 11:15 PM

DON my Man....I am here, I have responded and I am not a "TROLL". However, it appears that I have touched a very sensitive spot in your spirit.

Isn't it amazing how some people must resort to name calling when pricked by the Word of God!!! Read your Bible Don...it does not paint a nice picture of those who refuse rebuke, but trust in their own "knowledge."

I fear not your words or your condemnation, but that I give you over to God, who by the way, is the only one who may rightly judge "OUR HEART."

And yes.....YOU are a sinner as is myself and everyone else on this planet.

God Bless your heart and may He give you peace and free you from your anger.

Aland

Posted by: Aland | September 5, 2008 11:45 PM

"Isn't it amazing how some people must resort to name calling when pricked by the Word of God!!!"

Aland - please don't conflate your ramblings with the Word of God; you play a fine game of Biblical hop-scotch which, as most here are aware, is a tired recipe for attempting to prove anything you want, anytime, anywhere; I've found the average participant on God's Politics to be well above that kind of nonsense

you cite one of the most abused passages in all of Scripture with your reference to Jesus clearing the temple; the number of instances in the gospels where Jesus dealt w/ sinners in love and grace as opposed to anger outnumbers your example 10 to 1; I encourage you to do some research into how the author intended that story to relate to the overall intent of his gospel as a whole

Posted by: canucklehead | September 6, 2008 2:06 AM

Sarah Palin should be a true Christian mom and be HOME where all of her 5 babies + upcoming grandbaby need her so desperately. Watching her kids' forced smiles on TV make me cringe, and when I think about how much her youngest needs her and won't have her, it makes me cry. She's probably not even nursing this poor child. A pathetic and sad situation is all it is to me. McCain will absolutely not get my vote because of this situation he's created, and Palin is just another bad mommy parading around like a Christian. I will pray for her to see the damage she's inflicted on her family.

Posted by: Kate | September 6, 2008 2:42 AM

Why do the conservatives find it necessary to be far more nasty in their comments than those they consider to be the eveil liberals. Very telling about their christian character or lack thereof.
Also Jim was making arference to people who were offended by Palin's comments, he was ot taking sides.

Posted by: Oliver | September 6, 2008 7:59 AM

In response to Kate: Sarah Palin should be a true Christian mom and be HOME where all of her 5 babies + upcoming grandbaby need her so desperately......

I haven't read your comments on how wrong it was for Sen. Biden to continue being a Senator after the tragedy with his first wife and daughter. He had to raise two boys without a spouse and continue to be a Senator! He did a great job at that as Gov. Palin would do if she became Vice President.
Please think before you call out someone as not being a true Christian for working and raising a family. It's not very fair.

Posted by: Tim L | September 6, 2008 9:18 AM

Before making my comments, I will say that I am not a McCain supporter, nor have plans to vote Republican this fall. Yet, this particular blog really does excel in its hypocrisy, and someone needs to call out Jim Wallis once in a while.

As one who has dealt with community organizers in the past, they pretty much were white liberals or leftists (and trust fund babies) who made accusations against us that were not true, but did manage to stir people to anger. So, as one who has been lied about by community organizers, I must say that I tend to have a different view of groups like ACORN.

And, speaking of ACORN, which Mr. Wallis supports, we see that this group has been involved in massive voter fraud around the country. So, I guess one "responsibility" of community organizers is to commit legal fraud.

On the abortion issue, first we see that Mr. Wallis and Tony managed to have "historic" language inserted in the Democratic platform: Women now have the "permission" of the Democratic Party to have babies. Gee, glad you finally are in the 21st Century, given that women have been having babies -- without your permission -- for thousands of years.

But now that John McCain has a genuine pro-life person on his ticket, I see that the Democratic attack machine is revving up to promote its absolutist position on abortion. So much for the recent "conversion" of Democrats to being "pro-life."

Mr. Wallis says that he has been trying to make Obama more appealing to evangelicals concerned about U.S. foreign policy and the violence of its overseas wars. (Is war anything but violent? The issue is not violence, but its "justification" by evangelicals who ought to know better than to support aggressive wars abroad.)

However, in one fell swoop, by putting its absolutist pro-abortion position front-and-center, I can assure Mr. Wallis and the Sojourners Cult that the evangelicals will realize once again that Democrats really do despise them and their beliefs. (Don't forget all of the snide remarks about Ms. Palin's religious views that are on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Pandagon, and Moveon, all of which are run by Democratic operatives.)

So, in the end, while Mr. Wallis claims that he is "independent," in the end he proves once again to be nothing more than a Democratic operative, just like Amanda Marcotte, the woman who made fun of the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth, using obscene and vulgar terms. Both of them really are peas in the same pod.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 6, 2008 10:58 AM

I am a Christian and Sarah Palin's speech lacked the basic principles of Christian values; better yet, any civil discourse. My two daughters walked out and I cried.

While I respect a good debate, belittling another person is not of God. What was and continues to be more appalling is the attitude of Evangelical Christians.

If I did not have a strong faith in God, I would not want to have anything to do with Christians. What was portrayed to the world is that E.Christians are mean spirited and nasty.

Posted by: Elizabeth | September 6, 2008 11:17 AM

Ive gotten a tremendous amount of info at this blogg and love it,from my family in faith it is good to read the positivity here im still not persauded one way or the other as far as experience im leaning towards JOE BIDEN over all,hopfuly GOD will become apart of our election and assist in choosing the wright ones not for bravery or making history but for the bennifit of the good of the UNITEDSTATES may we all pray about the outcome most importanly unite behind the winner after its all said & done.

Posted by: RAFFEY | September 6, 2008 11:31 AM

Alan, This is an christian left blog. Most followers of Jim Wallis think that the US government taxing it citizens and giving the money to poor of the US and the world somehow trumps the traditional Christian values of pro-life and hetero-marriage. Do some research on Jim Wallis re Marxism and you will find that he once said that he wished everyone saw the world through Karl Marx' eyes. He supported Kerry in 2004 and speaks highly of Obama all the time.

If you truly believe what you wrote in the above paragraph... why are you here? Why won't you find some right winged Christian place to blog.

Posted by: LAE | September 6, 2008 12:11 PM

Jim,

Funny I don't recall you saying that Obama should apologize for his insulting comments about people in small towns who cling to their guns and religion.

I do hope that Obama has sent a community organizer to help his half brother who is living in a cardboard box.

Posted by: Brian | September 6, 2008 12:18 PM

LAE- Please...nothing trumps God's word.
The conservitives try to use the abortion issue to gather christian votes and then the Bush administration laughed at the 'kooks and Jesus freaks'(the administrations words) after the left Pennsylvania Ave campus.
With no supreme court judge due to retire within the next decade, it simply matters not if Mccain is collected. The republicans held the WhiteHouse for eight years and the Congress for six...where was abortion turned over during that time?
Riiigghhtttt.
It is an important issue to us Christians,but not really to our elected officials.
During the next seven weeks the dems will get on the horse of war that McCain is riding in the wrong direction and share his opinon(which is far away from Palin's) on abortion. Mccain dodges this bullet,as both parties have, stating,'I think it is an issue that should be left up to each state.'
McCain is done.
He's a war hero and he has had a facinating career. But, he's about a war that,overwhelmingly,America wants out of.
His plan for finance is to stop all pork,lol.
It includes lower tax brackets for the top five percent of the US citizens, in reguards to income.
People are losing their homes, gas is going through the roof, our poverty level is the highest it's been since 1933....
...AND he DOESNT KNOW how many homes he owns????
He's toast and Palin,unfortunately,will get the blame.
Here's another vote for President Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 6, 2008 12:41 PM

LAE--quick word of advice to help clarify your posts. When you are quoting a fellow poster, use quotes and attribute the quote to the poster. That way, we won't think the words you are quoting represent your words and views.

Cheers

Posted by: squeaky | September 6, 2008 1:30 PM

Thank you for your comments, Jim. I was grieved when I heard that disparaging remark about community organizing. It just shows how out of touch a person can be with those whose everyday realities differ from their own. Those whom we elect should care especially for the poor and marginalized. God does and gave specific direction to Israel to care for the widow, orphan, elderly and alien in the land. To those who want our nation to be governed by God's principles, I don't think that mandate as changed.

Posted by: JBJ | September 6, 2008 2:07 PM

I view Sarah Palin as more of the same talking heads. Whether she meant her nasty remarks or not, she insulted a huge number of Americans whose volunteering makes us a great country. We, the people of the U.S. are known around the world as generous and caring. We get in and help, not critize. Take a good look at the tragedies that have happened in our own country. The most generous people are the middle class and the poor, not the wealthy. Their favorite word is 'greed' and Sarah Palin identifies with that class. As a Christian I think Sarah is missing most of the message of Jesus Christ.

Posted by: Virginia | September 6, 2008 2:33 PM

Regarding my comment: ""You are just swinging at everyone and not listening to the points made."

Squeaky - I apologize for an inappropriate and ungracious comment which unintentionally and recklessly conflated several comments by others with yours which I was specifically reacting to. I apologize.

Regarding your comment: "A bigger point is that if we can't take anything they say seriously, then what's the point of listening at all? Maybe I'm on to something..."

No, everything is contextual. To say that we can't take anything they say seriously is to disregard the context. We need to look for the point being made. The jab about community organizers was to claim that her experience as mayor is something very different from Obama's as a community organizer. We take that point seriously, and we agree or disagree with it. Her joke was the delivery vehicle for the point.

On the other hand, concerning her comment, "starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources" we better take that seriously. There isn't any metaphor there; no figure of speech; no "delivery vehicle." The point is there and it is either a good or bad thing and people on both sides had better take it seriously because it could matter greatly to the future of country.

Again, I'm sorry for the one line of my first every post.

Blessings.

Posted by: G. Bruce | September 6, 2008 3:07 PM

I read this blog every day and I must have missed the Jim Wallis' column where he said that Barrack Obama owes a lot of people an apology when he spoke of people that "cling to their guns and religion". That's more offensive than anything Gov. Palin has said.

Posted by: Tim | September 6, 2008 3:50 PM

G. Bruce--

Thank you very much for your apology--I appreciate it!

Good point about context...I admit I got chills when she made the comments you quoted. I think she meant what she said.

Posted by: squeaky | September 6, 2008 4:24 PM

"I guess the thing that gets me is the liberal-mind's need for a "community organizer". Conservatives tend to not feel the need for someone else to come along and organize them and be a surrogate hand for the benevolent government."

With respect, who but community organizers are left to care for the poor, hungry, sick, and elderly once the no-longer-benevolent government has forsaken them? Apparently, not only is it not cool to expect the government to take care of anyone, but it's apparently also not cool to help the community do it without government assistance. So... where does that leave us?

Communities do NOT organize themselves, not any more than corporations do. How well would Microsoft do if they said "you know what? Our employees don't need to rely on someone else to come along and organize them!" and then laid off all their managers?

God bless the community organizers of the world. They're the only hope the Republican party has of making a reality of this dream of "small government" that I keep hearing so much about.

Posted by: Carrie | September 6, 2008 4:31 PM

I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s in Birmingham, Alabama and North Alabama. The code words used by whites to conceal their racism at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, and justify their racism by explaining that there was really no problem to be addressed, were embodied in phrases like “communist outside agitators”.

This is precisely what the Republicans were trying to echo with their references to “community organizers” in the speeches at the Republican convention.

This is just more of the hideous misuse of language to manipulate emotions and appeal to the meanest and most base motives and prejudices through buzz words and code words that the radical right wing has become so adept and successful at doing in American politics.

Posted by: HeartlandLiberal | September 6, 2008 5:15 PM

A community organizer is real a pleasant thing. Then however there is the notion of the arctic where no man wish to tread and no woman wish to, remain. It is mostly a myth. The life expectancy is:- shorter. Americans eat moose because the Taylor Homes contained rust and vice versa. In the arctic the ugly habits of poverty will be praised but in the urban poor of the rest of a haver nation they will be denounced to excess. Community organizers in the arctic save lives. But they are forgotten. Without money real politics is a blood sport anywhere where human cord is dust. And in the Americas, the urban poor have no money but a sub-sport instead where people can say they build a Kingdom on God by pronouncing their neighbors hopeless characters. Moose eat rust which hunts moose and planned obsolescence is the life of the care new poor.

In the urbanity of Alaska there is a symbol of hope, but on the edge of town, supposedly history ended a long sure time ago, with winter closing in.

Posted by: Famous Words | September 6, 2008 5:27 PM

"Or be honest and fess up to the fact that you are a strong Democrat partisan...something that is abundantly clear. Your hypocrisy is astounding."

If you're looking for hypocrisy from the Right, there are plenty of other blogs around. I'm an independent, and often don't agree with Sojo, but I can quickly go to Crunchy Con and see how many people are going completely gah-gah over Sarah Palin. Don't think for a minute that Crunchy Con will not be pulling the McCain-Palin lever.

Posted by: ando | September 6, 2008 5:45 PM

Thank you for commenting on this. As someone with several friends who have worked or do work in community organizing - especially those affiliated with Christian groups - I was shocked and saddened by the demeaning commentary on Wednesday night. Community organizers can be a tremendous benefit to society and also help reduce the dependence on some government services.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 6, 2008 6:42 PM

I just don't understand why the Republicans always have to ridicule people. If Sarah Palin doesn't agree with community faith-based organizing, why can't she just say so and then explain why. Instead she uses sarcasm and condescension to ridicule the good works of community organizers all over this country.

I think she's rude and I don't appreciate her snide remarks.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 6, 2008 7:20 PM

lookbeyond-

so in other words, the Democrats shouldn't question Palin's credentials because if they do, the Republicans will manufacture more lies about Obama.

Do you have actual evidence for your slanderous assertions about Obama from actual, reputable, verifiable sources?

look beyond the e-mail notifications you get about Obama, and find if they are actually true before you repeat them.

Posted by: squeaky | September 6, 2008 8:07 PM

As a community organizer myself, I felt the sting of those comments, and while I agree that an apology is in order, I would prefer it to come from the campaign officials who decided that demeaning the contribution of our kind would be a productive tactic in this election.

As for Mrs. Palin, I find her uniquely unqualified for the office of VP but primarily irrelivant except for what her selection says about John McCain's decision-making process.

Posted by: Jules | September 6, 2008 9:39 PM

I disagree with most of these people. I think Sarah Palin is great.

Posted by: Conservative | September 6, 2008 10:06 PM

Don wrote:
Oh and yes, I am a sinner, absolutely. I confess my sins daily and we have a joint confession every Sunday in church. But your call for repentance seemed more specific than repenting of sin in general. It seemed to have something to do with your blasting us for the refusal of some of us to accept your political agenda.

You still don't get it. There is a big difference between confession and repentance. What good is confession without a concerted effort to "turn around?"
As per your "political agenda" comment, I never once pushed any "political agenda." No, your issue was being confronted with what the Bible says and what you choose to either accept or reject based on your own beliefs. Is that not the behavior of the typical "professing" Christian. I have debated with many agnostics and atheists and quite frankly, your responses were no different than the arguments they presented.

My point was, and still is, that people "choose" their non-biblical supported positions, political or otherwise, and then get defensive when their conduct is questioned with regard to "Biblical correctness."

Don wrote:
Did I ever say I supported "abortion rights"? In case you forgot to read them, go back and read my comments from the last week or so, especially those on the abortion threads.

If you do not support abortion rights DON, then how on earth can you support someone who does? Do we really think we will escape God's judgment because we didn't "do" the act ourselves? Are we not guilty by association/acceptance when we do not defend godly principles?

Abortion is contrary to God's Word - PERIOD! Homosexuality is contrary to God's Word - PERIOD! When confronted with God's Word and unable to justify their positions, people often "redirect" from the issue with personal attacks.

What is the Christian justification for supporting [anyone, much less, a presidential candidate] with immoral/sinful philosophies? It is the same old story. How does it go? "I do not personally agree with their beliefs, but I do not feel I have the right to tell them what they can and can not do." Would you feel the same way if they wanted to outlaw Christianity? Sometimes I feel as though the real issue for not standing up for what is right is pure cowardice or fear of persecution. How strong are your beliefs and your faith? Condemnation is not my intent, but proclaiming what God says about immoral behaviors is. I know many people with these lifestyles and belief systems. I lost my beloved brother-in-law to AIDS. I did not approve of his moral choices, but I loved him and we spent many joy-filled hours together all the same. We grieved for his pain, suffering and horrible death, and we miss him very much to this very day. However, we never condoned his behavior. We often spoke with him regarding the possible physical and spiritual consequences he faced.

My point is this: My brother-in-law made a choice that affected only himself, but those who promote and support abortion, whether directly or indirectly, deny the defenseless unborn child that choice. God created that life. Who has the right to take it, other than the Creator Himself?

God said that if you are not for me, then you are against me.

I do not have a political agenda, but I am obviously conservative. I love my God, my country, my family and my Corps, in that order! I have the greatest respect for those who put others ahead of themselves, including "community organizers," volunteers, anonymous benefactors and missionaries. I shudder at our society's moral degradation over the last 30 years. I agonize over the corruption of our political system and it's movement toward a new world order. I detest the liberal media and the "Hollywood" mentality that defines freedom as removing God from our public institutions and exploiting our youth through deceptive and sexually oriented propaganda. When did it become socially acceptable to use profanity in the public arena? When did it become socially acceptable to murder innocent children or parade down the middle of a city street in lewd attire and performing homosexual acts? When did it become acceptable for governmental officials to order police NOT to enforce decency laws?
I get quite frustrated with people of no integrity, who say one thing and do another. I applaud those who publicly denounce cruelty toward defenseless or poor people (regardless of color, sex, nationality, religion or even sexual orientation) and inhumane treatment of animals. I do not approve of unions because all too often they support the "member," even when the member is completely in the wrong or is in blatant violation of contractual agreements. I am ashamed for our country when an American President performs immoral and adulterous acts in the White House, looks us and the world directly in the eyes, and maliciously and unlawfully proclaims his innocence and is not held accountable. And finally, I deplore those who are willing to give God their money and their lip service, but are unwilling to get involved with His work. Is that being judgmental? Probably, but what you give the most time to is what you hold in the highest esteem.

One last comment and I will get out of your hair. I noticed that practically all those who were offended with the political rhetoric of Mrs. Palin were serving as faithful people in either faith-based organizations or in needy communities. I thank you for your service and your commitment. I truly apologize to all of you for my unjustly "rude" comments. I do, however, still stick to the opinion of selfless service in God's work and doing what is right, not because we feel obligated or seek self-glorification, but because of our undying love for our Father and our earthly brothers and sisters. It truly is better to give than receive!

I pray that God will bless each and every one of you beyond your wildest expectations

AlanD

Posted by: Anonymous | September 6, 2008 10:18 PM

Mr/Ms canucklehead wrote:
you cite one of the most abused passages in all of Scripture with your reference to Jesus clearing the temple; the number of instances in the gospels where Jesus dealt w/ sinners in love and grace as opposed to anger outnumbers your example 10 to 1; I encourage you to do some research into how the author intended that story to relate to the overall intent of his gospel as a whole

Maybe you would be kind enough to enlighten me canucklehead. You took my example and completely twisted my intent to something ridiculously ignorant. My intent was to show that God did not say it is sinful to display anger, if that anger does not manifest itself as sin. Get it???? Now, the truth there canucklehead. Did Christ get angry or did He not? Did His anger cause Him to Sin? Does the Bible teach controlled anger not manifested in sinful acts is a sin none the less?

One last thing canucklehead. Is our society not unlike the money changers? Have we not defiled our earthly temples and turned to our own lustful and idolatrous desires? Do we not have laws justifying the killing of our unborn children and making a mockery of God's design for the union of a man and a woman? Well??? How are you gonna twist this one?

It is written that if all the wonderful actions and miracles Jesus performed during His ministry were written down, there would most likely not be enough books to hold them. I am very aware of God's grace and of Jesus' unselfish servitude, love, compassion, forgiveness and non-judgmental attitude. I find it quite hard to comprehend the depth of His love for us and I probably never will understand until I see Him face to face. I do know however, that His thoughts are not mine and I have complete trust and faith in His plan for my life. I now know how Paul felt when he said, "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain" (Philip 1) I care very little for the "things" of this world or the opinions of those who deny Christ. I look forward to the day I am called home and will live with Christ in a world of peace, love, joy, compassion, patience and selfless servitude.

To God be the GLORY!

God Bless
AlanD

Posted by: AlanD | September 6, 2008 11:00 PM

Bless you, Mr. Wallis. This was the single most offensive thing she did in her speech, in my opinion.

For no good reason, (laziness, as a matter of fact) I had allowed my subscription to lapse. Right this moment, I will renew, and will not allow it to lapse again!

Posted by: Andrea | September 6, 2008 11:19 PM

AlanD--you were unjustly rude to Canucklehead. Your language is not befitting your witness of Christ. I hope you apologize, for he was not at all rude to you, and I don't think you want to represent yourself in that way, do you?

Posted by: squeaky | September 6, 2008 11:46 PM

Let's read between the lines here. If Palin and Guiliani are going on the offensive against community organizers, are they not really saying that if you don't like something that government and/or business does in you community, you should sit down and shut up and simply wait for the next election? That's what I call lazy democracy.

Posted by: Andrew Viertel | September 7, 2008 1:27 AM

Let us not forget that our second president, John Adams, and many of our Founding Fathers including John Hancock, Paul Revere, and Ben Franklin, were community organizers in a loose organization called The Sons of Liberty.

These community organizers, not unlike Barack Obama led a social movement that led to the formation of the United States.

So for anyone who would like to truly compair Obama's experience organizing a movement that has drafted him one step from the White House, I would ask one simple question:

What movement has Sarah Palin organized?

Posted by: Erik | September 7, 2008 4:59 AM

Michael--thanks for your sensitive response about Clinton.

What paper are you getting?!

Its called the kitsap Sun . kitsap County .
The nastines is also in the Seattle papers , I actually see it here all the time .

I see comments like brown shirts here , and others with the strongest intent to negatively portray a persons origin of opinion to be based in bigotry .The mainstream media , well is CNBC , ABC , CNN , mainstream ? they bring up Palins support of Abstinence education with the fact a 17 year had a baby ? Not once has my District bring up the fact that we support a number of kids getting their diplomas who have had babies receiving comprehensive sex education . the mentality that blames a parent or government program for a kid making a bad decision is just an example of yellow jounalism . Have you read Wallis taking Obama to task about McCains 5 million dollar remark . Obviously taking it out of context , its on utube . I doubt any liberal here will really care that Obama lied about that . Why , because he supports the views you hold . Nothing wrong with that , but putting the jesus covering over it is a bit much .

The NY Times just printed a story that palin was a member of a right wing organization that promoted recession . They printed the retraction today , I wonder how many will read the retraction . In Seattle CEO Bill Gates gave millions , I think actually billions, but I get confused after a so many 0's ;0) .. I did not hear wallis taking Obama to task for his ceo selfish remarks . I mean I think we blame CEOs for everything these days . Why did he not take Obama to task , what citynorganizers are more important in God's eyes ? My Bible says they are equal . because Wallis politically is a liberal ,he took Palin to task , and Palin is a conservative who took Obama to task because he is a liberal .

All basically based on politcs. Both sides are pretty nasty at times , and this blog is about as bad as you can get . Soething about promoting the Sermon on the Mt with names like Canucklehead . " I bet he is mad at his Mom "

Conservatism based in racism Is often stated here , no liberals dispute that . How sad .. Liberalism is the red letter answer to heaven I guess . I rally don't think Christ is that political , he is really concerned about our hearts and we relate to Him , and the rest has a way of working out .

When you have people setting themselves that their politics represent Christ , like wallis , falwell, from either side its wrong .

I know Jesus , Jesus is a Friend of Mine , Obama is no Jesus.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2008 6:10 AM

AlanD, I don't need you to lecture me about my spiritual condition, which you no absolutely nothing about anyway and is none of your business besides. That is between myself, my God, my wife and my pastor, in that order. You are simply being rude and have been ever since your first post appeared.

Squeaky's comments regarding the political matters reflect my thinking on that topic, so I won't add any more to what she wrote. I hope you take her comments to heart.

May God be with you,

Don

Posted by: Don | September 7, 2008 7:30 AM

Palins support of Abstinence education with the fact a 17 year had a baby?

It says that you want to impose a belief system on others that doesn't work your own family. That's why it's relevant.

Conservatism based in racism Is often stated here, no liberals dispute that.

Anyone who does dispute that has not read the writings of conservatives themselves -- in an interview published in May in the New Yorker magazine, Pat Buchanan openly admitted that, when he worked for the Nixon campaign, he fully intended to use race as a wedge issue (and, to a certain extent, succeeded).

Posted by: Rick | September 7, 2008 9:03 AM

My hope is that Barack Obama will community organize the Republicans right out of office. Obama's whole web site calls for a bottom up, you organize your neighborhood, kind of approach.

Posted by: Joe | September 7, 2008 10:56 AM

the weird thing is, all politicians are community organizers.

Posted by: lil lamb | September 7, 2008 1:55 PM

Meanwhile, here's John Judis in the upcoming edition of the New Republic:

"In truth, however, if you examine carefully how Obama conducted himself as an organizer and how he has conducted himself as a politician, if you consider what he said about organizing to his fellow organizers, and if you look at the reasons he gave friends and colleagues for abandoning organizing, then a very different picture emerges: that of a disillusioned activist who fashioned his political identity not as an extension of community organizing but as a wholesale rejection of it. Indeed, the most important thing to know about Barack Obama's time as a community organizer in Chicago may not be what he gained from the experience--but rather why, in late 1987, he decided to quit."

On Obama's accomplishments as a Community Organizer:

Next, he began to focus on providing social services for Altgeld Gardens. 'We didn't yet have the power to change state welfare policy, or create local jobs, or bring substantially more money into the schools,' he wrote. 'But what we could do was begin to improve basic services at Altgeld--get the toilets fixed, the heaters working, the windows repaired.' Obama helped the residents wage a successful campaign to get the Chicago Housing Authority to promise to remove asbestos from the units; but, after an initial burst of activity, the city failed to keep its promise. (As of last year, some residences still had not been cleared of asbestos.) In waging these campaigns, Obama's organization added staff, gained adherents, and won church support, including from the congregation of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. But it failed to stem the area's overall decline. 'Ain't nothing gonna change, Mr. Obama,' says one resident quoted in Dreams from My Father who grows disillusioned with the Developing Communities Project. 'We just gonna concentrate on saving our money so we can move outta here as fast as we can.'"

On the inherent nobility of Community Organizing along the model established by Saul Alinski:

"Obama ... was clearly troubled by the example of SON/SOC, which suggested that an organization, acting on Alinsky's principles, could become racist. (Indeed, Alinsky's first group, the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council, had become a bastion of support for segregationist George Wallace in the 1960s.)"

I should point out that Judis describes community organizing as something distinct from politics. In one sense it is: Community Organizing, at least as imagined by Alinsky, tends to keep a distance from electoral campaigns. On the other hand, much of what it does is directed at influencing elected officials and bureaucrats. This is what I mean when I describe this work as "political".

Judis also explains the role of Saul Alinski in creating the "Community Organizer" role. Among Alinski's principles is the idea that organizing must focus entirely on self-interest. Obama's training and work was largely based on Alinski's model.

Now you may accept this or not, but Judis is not considered particularly conservative, and TNR is a fairly left-of-center publication. The point is, one does not have to be a fire-breathing Republican to see problems in "Community Organizing", at least when it is based on the theories of Saul Alinski.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 7, 2008 3:27 PM

It seems clear that Jim is a political liberal, which he has a right to be. So, what he says must be read within that context. He is a very hard working man of God, doing what he believes he is lead to do by our Lord. He is doing a great work for the kingdom. I admire him greatly, and do not have to always agree with him. One of my greatest criticisms of the Christian churches is that they have a duty to do what many want the government to do, namely, take care of the poor, and downcast, etc. The churches seem to be focused on asking their members to give to themselves, by asking that all giving go through the church, where most of it stays. In effect, Christians who primarily give to the church are giving to themselves. Just think about that!!

Posted by: Jack/Jay | September 7, 2008 3:37 PM

Another point to remember as we're comparing Palin's and Obama's experience:

He has been in state and federal government for 11 years. She has been in state government for 2 years. There is a difference.

And before anyone starts quoting Gov. Palin about how Obama has never authored a single piece of major legislation, go check the facts on that. Factcheck.org should be able to help you sort that one out.

Posted by: Paul | September 7, 2008 3:54 PM

Palins support of Abstinence education with the fact a 17 year had a baby?

It says that you want to impose a belief system on others that doesn't work your own family. That's why it's relevant.

Rick,
When did Palin impose her religious beliefs as it relates to abstinence education on others? Please give a clear answer, not an story from your church or about a guy you know. A solid example to back this charge.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | September 7, 2008 6:09 PM

"One last thing canucklehead. Is our society not unlike the money changers? Have we not defiled our earthly temples and turned to our own lustful and idolatrous desires? Do we not have laws justifying the killing of our unborn children and making a mockery of God's design for the union of a man and a woman? Well??? How are you gonna twist this one?" AlanD

Sir, with all due respect, I'm really not sure how to carry on meaningful dialogue with someone who can extract abortion and homosexual marriage from the narrative of Jesus cleansing the temple in John 2. As I suggested earlier, you may wish to give some thought to the author's original intent in including an incident from the life of Christ that all the synoptists' omit and attempt to relate it to a possible overall purpose for the gospel of John.

When I was in seminary, I was taught that "rightly dividing the word of truth" involves identifying the author's intent in recording what they did. IMHO, one of the major shortcomings of North American Christians is our propensity to skip that part of the hermeneutical process and immediately start slapping potential modern applications on the Scripture. As one of my sem profs used to say, "such may be good for the blessing, but it's brutal for the text."

So perhaps it's best for you and I to agree to disagree and move on. In any event, if you're going to be a regular contributor here, may I suggest you learn to lighten up a bit and dispense with some of your claims such as the one made to Squeaky = ..... "I am not a politically minded person and contrary to whatever anyone else here accuses, I was not pushing any political agenda."

Please! Your disparaging remarks regarding Obama and your defensiveness of Palin have been obvious to all from the beginning of your posting here. Fine - you're entitled to your political perspectives, and please understand that most people who hang around here very long don't hesitate to proudly display their political undergarments. Nonetheless, the crossfire is potent at times and if you stick your head out, sooner or later somebody will pin your ears to the wall.

Posted by: canucklehead | September 7, 2008 8:13 PM

>> may be rash and unpolished in my words and convictions, but I am true to my biblical ideals.

Now just hold on fer a gosh-dern minute Sparky n cut back on the java juice. Mater of fact--you n Michael both need to cut down onj the coffee.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2008 8:20 PM

Uh Bud, speakin of cutting back, you might want to lay off the cannabis for a bit.
Or to quote the immortal Hunter Thompson, upon spotting a particularly besotted fan at a 1970s rock concert: "I want what that guy's on."

Canucklehead, Don is particularly sensitive about his liberal hirsuteness, so go easy on the poor thing. And please don't try to confuse the issues by spouting postmodern jargon like "hermeneutical process." That could give a guy a headache. Next thing you know you'll be promoting textual exegesis.

Posted by: carl copas | September 7, 2008 8:34 PM

Give me a break. The over all point is that being a community organizer doesn't qualify one to be president.

He simply doesn't have the experience. I don't see you going after him when he made elitist comments. You have become for the Democratic Party what you accuse the Religious Right of being for the GOP.

Posted by: Shane Vander Hart | September 7, 2008 11:20 PM

canucklehead wrote:
Sir, with all due respect, I'm really not sure how to carry on meaningful dialogue with someone who can extract abortion and homosexual marriage from the narrative of Jesus cleansing the temple in John 2.

Wow....you are amazing Mr. Canucklehead. Meaningful dialog? Where did you learn to read and interpret the English language? Maybe you should go back to my original post and then work your way forward like they taught you in seminary with an emphasis on humility. First of all you twisted the intent of my original example of Jesus in the temple, which was to point out the difference between righteous anger and sinful anger. I was not intent on conducting a theology class. Then you have the audacity to twist it again and claim I tied abortion and homosexual behavior to Jesus clearing the Temple. Maybe it isn't Bud who is smoking the cannabis.

Hey while you are doing your speed reading of ALL my posts, maybe you can slow it down a little and actually read the words with a little unbiased comprehension. For example, you wrote:

Please! Your disparaging remarks regarding Obama and your defensiveness of Palin have been obvious to all from the beginning of your posting here.

Nice to know you are the spokesperson for all the other posters. You are so very good at non-contextual rendering of a person's words. Sounds much like a politician who extracts only those comments they can twist to their advantage and completely leaving the "meat" of the discussion hidden within the butcher paper. Their deceptive strategy is to plant the seed and run for cover. Isn't that a little like Jesus' parable of the tares? If you are going to make a statement and then push it as fact, make sure it is fact and not some contorted misrepresentation. I have claimed to not support either candidate because of their stands on abortion and immoral sexual behavior. I have not defended anyone other than to point out that everyone has the right to refute claims made against them. If those ridiculous claims were never presented in the first place, then I am willing to bet that the response would not have been made either. That was my point and it would apply equally to either party. After all, this is America isn't it .. at least for now.

One last issue and then I will "agree" to "disagree" because obviously you can't see that the heart of my argument is not what party is best for America. They are both equally deficient for allowing God to be taken out of our governing bodies and our public life. Do you not recall in your past scriptural studies what the result of such a policy will bring upon a guilty nation?

And finally, you made the following asinine comment:

Nonetheless, the crossfire is potent at times and if you stick your head out, sooner or later somebody will pin your ears to the wall.

Mr. Canucklehead, I spent over 21 years in service to our country and fought in the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq. I am personally familiar with the potential dangers of being caught in a "potent" crossfire, unlike so many others who have not served in combat, yet think they know what it would be like. They would suggest that you (These here BUDs arrr fur you, Mr. Duncan!) "hunker" down behind a rock or run off to Canada for proteck shun. Well, that is not what I was taught to do Mr. Canucklehead. I was taught to aggressively advance directly toward the enemy and fight my way out. It is better to die fighting than to die "hunkered" down "shakin" like a leaf. So you see, your suggestion that I might get my "ears pinned back" is of no concern to me. Please save that hogwash for the hog pen or for someone like Mr. Duncan who might need to clean up after a night of "righteous" partyin, Dude.

God's Word says it is better to die for doing what is right than to die for doing what is wrong. I for one do not want to be doing wrong when called home. Just so we are clear here, my definition of "wrong" in this context is anything contrary to God's will. Do you really feel that this country is doing God's will Mr. Canucklehead?
If so, I might entertain the thought of possibly reading your talking points. Otherwise, oh well...

Be "in" the World, but not "of" it!
AlanD

Posted by: AlanD | September 8, 2008 12:49 AM

I suppose that's, 'render unto'. oops.

Posted by: Rese | September 8, 2008 3:02 AM

Now let's get to the heart of the matter. American government is structured by the wisdom gained from hard earned and slow learned lessons.

Power is dispersed to protect the people from the real threat of tyranny. History repeats itself because we narcissisticly believe in our unique superiority over the past.

That dispersal of power mandates that the individual and community must assume greater responsibility for their own care. Love your neighbor is first a local endeavor, then a global work. If you can't or won't aid your own, then who will trust to you with larger powers?

Posted by: Rese | September 8, 2008 4:20 AM

When Katrina hit, everyone assumed it was the other guys responsibility to respond with maturity. Family's failed each other. Churches failed their members and attenders. Local, State and Federal responders all failed one another.

And community organizers failed as well.

No one was innocent in that disaster.

All that to say, Governer Sarah Palin is not responsible for the fall of the human race, nor is she hoping to be the new Messiah. She is an executive authority, in many different roles of her life. As a mother she lives out compassion to her five children, it is we, the public, who are being hateful toward her children.

Posted by: Rese | September 8, 2008 5:03 AM

As believers, why do we oppose tyranny? I remember in classes being taught about benevolent despotism. Good kings and queens. Historically they are such a radical exception to the rule that we still cling to their faded memories. Wouldn't it be nice to live under the reign of Camelot?

We oppose anyone who seeks to assume the powers of the office of God. We don't often realize that is the definition of idolatry. To allow any thing or person other than the One to sit on that throne is idolatry.

Neither Ceasar, nor an American President, is the One.

Posted by: Rese | September 8, 2008 5:47 AM

ps-Communtiy Organizers are a neccessary extension of the dispersal of powers, not the end all and be all that justifies all this felt offense. They are not bearers of the sword, so cannot be equated with someone who is endowed with that power.

Posted by: Rese | September 8, 2008 6:05 AM

Yes, breathe deep and ask yourself if you are willing to accept the morality of the person's involved in this year’s election. Are you willing to go another 4 years with the lies and rhetoric of the last eight? Do you care that a morally minded person takes pictures in a flag bikini holding a gun? Do you mind that they both want and have said it will be their own way for the next four years? Where have we heard that before? If you want truth and change then look deeper than color than sex and age. Look not even at inexperience but look at the character of the person and go forward. The moral majority stood behind Mr. Bush and what did it get us these last 8 years, war, high inflation and more problems than we ever imagined. Grow up think of what is right for America and go forward.

Posted by: Theresa | September 8, 2008 8:10 AM

I concur that comments relative to "community organizers" in general were inappropriate. I say in general because by and large these unsung heros do perform a valuable service for their communities. Specifically, BHO was used, knowingly or unknowingly by Leftist William Ayers and his ilke to use this otherwise positive office to tap the frustration, anger, and pre-judice of South Chicago for negative and hurtful purposes. Rather than helping his constituents, he used them for his (and his collegues) purposes. I refer you to "The Obama Nation" by J. Corsi among other records documenting this unfortunate saga in BHO's life. A laudable use of his Harvard education? That's for you to judge but in line with his Black Liberation Theology, leftist ideology, and consistent with his patchwork up-bringing. Dave.

Posted by: Dave. Fouser | September 8, 2008 9:22 AM

I wish I could stay up and participate more, but Bonzo needs his sleep before driving again.

Theologically we are universally a moral mess. Self rightuosness is the symptom of those who assume we are innately, or even potentially good. That is denial. It leads to gullibility when photoshopped and staged images are presented as fact and truth.

It also leads to a presumption of self exaltation that results in fragile egos when masks are removed by the presence of contradiction. Call it the Oz Effect. Who is that man behind the curtain?

Not to mention apples and oranges...

Posted by: Rese | September 8, 2008 9:33 AM

I refer you to "The Obama Nation" by J. Corsi

This book is full of lies and half-truths. I wouldn't trust a word in it.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808040005

The next thing you know, they will be using the geographic proximity of Alaska to Russia & Canada to create foreign policy experience./i>

They've already done that.

D

Posted by: Don | September 8, 2008 9:58 AM

Actually I'd have you look at the record of the Governor of Oregon, or most any State in the Union. Foriegn policy, and Chief Executive powers are normative not absent from their records, even in backwater Western states.

Posted by: Rese | September 8, 2008 10:10 AM

What I truly find cynical, is the rise to potential power someone who was so dependent on the power of his projected public image, that being upstaged by a working class woman has so thoroughly unmanned him.

Posted by: Rese | September 8, 2008 10:23 AM

Enough, I can barely read, and left my spelling skills behind hours ago.

Psalm 37, my brothers and sisters, is what is stabilizing my family this election year. As for me, personally, I keep hearing the words of the Angel of the Lord responding to Joshua...

Posted by: Rese | September 8, 2008 10:44 AM

Oh, and as a follow-up. According to the definition of Community Organizer posted in this forum, the following people are also highly experience Community Organizers.

Cindy Mccain - ran multiple charities, did work with that great community Organizer Mother Theresa.

John McCain - organized POW's in the Hanoi Hilton, including a support network to keep morale up during torture sessions.

Sara Palin - President of the PTA, an extremely important community of parents and teachers working together to promote the education of children.

So, if being a Community Organizer is THE qualifying characteristic for being president, all of the above are equally qualified.

Posted by: frgough | September 8, 2008 11:00 AM

frgough showing the luv of Jesus herre on God's Politics!!! yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy frgough !!!!!! we're glad to have you on this here blog frgough cuzz we need more thotful posts like yours that show real Christian love !!! the rite hand of felowship!!!!!

Posted by: Bud Duncan | September 8, 2008 11:48 AM

AlanD,

I appreciate your thoughtful response.

I would just add a few thoughts:

What I see in your posts is a lot of anger about the horrors of abortion and sexual immorality, which is a justifiable position. However, what I haven't seen you express anger for is other injustices we have in the world (that I listed in my post).

What you really should be doing on this forum, if you truly hold to your hatred of injustice, is getting on here and railing about anyone who votes for anyone. Don't just target those who would vote for a pro-choice candidate. Go after those who would vote for a pro-war candidate, too. Don't go after those who voted for a president who committed amoral acts in the White House, go after those who voted for a president whose presidency is marked with corruption scandal after corruption scandal.

The impression you give is that you are one-sided in your criticism, and that in your mind, only the Democrats are corrupt while the Republicans are the picture of purity, which is far from the case.

As far as Don and Canucklehead insulting you...first of all, Canucklehead's comment was meant to be humorous. I'm sorry you missed that, but that is how he commonly discourses here, so don't take him too seriously. See his further comment to Don.

Don was reacting to your comments in a negative way because the tone of your comments are judgmental, whether you recognize it or not. You are saying he is a lesser Christian, and maybe not even a Christian at all because he would vote for a pro-choice candidate. This is an insult, even though you don't seem to understand why.

Let me try it another way--I'm very strongly pro-environment because I see that the resources God gave us are finite and we should preserve them and use them responsibly. This nation is by far the most wasteful of all nations in its use of resources. I think we are immoral in our use of God's creation--gluttony and selfishness are sins, and they too cause death, just as abortion does (ex: wars over resources). Let's just say you voted for Bush, whose environmental record is abysmal. What if my response was "you are a obviously a lesser Christian because you voted for someone who rapes the environment"?

I would never say that, though. And the reason I wouldn't is because I am not the judge of your relationship with God. I might encourage you to recycle or get a car with higher gas mileage, and I might have vigorous arguments with you about the topic, but I would never, ever tell you your relationship with God is lacking because you would vote for a candidate who doesn't care about the environment.

See, we can't do that, because the second we question the Christian character of another brother or sister, that same person just might be able to turn around and identify the plank in our own eye. Which, oddly enough, is large enough that we shouldn't even be able to see around it to identify the specks in other's eyes.

I hope that makes more sense now.

Posted by: squeaky | September 8, 2008 12:04 PM

The GOP is trying to take the sow's ear that is Mrs. Palin's lack of experience and trying to turn it into a silk purse. The next thing you know, they will be using the geographic proximity of Alaska to Russia & Canada to create foreign policy experience.

You would be surprised to find out how many community organizations have a larger budget and population that does Wasilla. And most of them actually balance their budgets.

Posted by: hootie1fan | September 8, 2008 12:19 PM

Thanks, Squeaky, for expressing in a kinder, gentler way, what I was trying to say to AlanD.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 8, 2008 12:59 PM

Paul,

They didn't say those things? I recall reading at least 5 entries calling Jesus Christ a Community Organizer. I recall at least two posts saying that leading a family made you a community organizer. I read more than one post that said community organizers spoke for the voiceless and downtrodden and a few that claimed people couldn't accomplish any meaningful task without being a community organizer.

By the way, it's not cynicism, it's satire.

Posted by: frgough | September 8, 2008 2:27 PM

frgough,

The case has been made that coalition troops in Iraq qualify as "community organizers" because "...communities are brought together to fight insurgents through informing on them to Coalition Force members, and to seek leaders to lead grassroots efforts to help their community to rebuild physically and socially from the devestations of the Saddam years, the Sunni-Shia conflict, and Al Quaeda in Iraq."

That's from the discussion page on the Wikipedia entry on "community organizing".

So does Gov. Palin owe the troops an apology too?

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 8, 2008 2:53 PM

Squeaky,

Thank you again for being straightforward and patient with me. I have never been one to speak out against or in favor of any political party because each has its own self-centered, self-righteous, and self-serving motives. It is a power struggle and frankly I feel that most, but not all, politicians are corrupt and could care less about the common citizens of this country. Why is it that approximately 500 individuals have the right to dictate to the millions, even when it is evident that the majority of their constituents do not agree with their personal ideals or their voting records (Republican or Democrat). Could it be because they are the supposed elite of mind and wealth in this nation? Does someone who goes to some ivy league or any other highly touted educational institution any more competent to lead than one who does not? It is not always a question of IQ, but more often a matter of common sense and good judgment.

I understand your philosophy regarding perceived "hateful/angry" comments, but beyond my first mistake, for which I am willing to concede was pretty "aggressive," I have received nothing but rude and uncalled for persecution and the twisting of my words and intent. It appears however, that it is only my statements that are held up to scrutiny and that their "obvious" insinuations and snide remarks are not addressed. If you want to promote a "fair and balanced" arena for discussion, then please get rid of the bias and call a fish a fish regardless of its color or water salinity preference.

I must also respectfully object to not having my rebuttal to Don, Canucklehead and Bud Duncan posted to this site. Are you now about censorship? According to your own "rules" I have done nothing but "potently" defended my position.

Now, these people you defend are either totally inept at understanding a plainly stated position or they are purposefully twisting the truth and slandering to cast doubt on the one presenting the message. I would suggest the latter to be closer to the truth. It appears they are much too enamored with the "political" lifestyle, in that they have become quite adept at using the same deceptive methods to discredit anyone with an opposing view.

I thought this was a "Christian" site where someone could express a biblically based viewpoint on someone's political position as it relates to Scripture? I did not know it was a haven for those who take exception to being confronted with the Word of God as it relates to their political philosophy? To make my point more clear, please return to my original post directed toward those who dared to compare Sen. Obama's views or service to the poor and disenfranchised to that of Christ. That was the point I made and honestly, I was steaming when I read their ridiculous statements as well as when I gave my opinion. I mentioned Mr. Obama because it was He they were comparing to Christ! Sorry, but my opinion still stands, that comparing Obama to Christ in any way, shape or form is ludicrous and "blasphemy!" If you look up the definition of blasphemy at Dictionary.com, you find the following:

"1. impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.

2. Judaism.
a. an act of cursing or reviling God.
b. pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.

3. Theology. the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.

4. irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself."

My use of the word was in context to #s 1,3 & 4.

I stated several times my stand on ANY politician, including McCain or anyone else for that matter, who promotes or supports any law contrary to the Law or expressed Will of God, needs to scrutinize their thoughts. Excluding and removing God as the focal point of this nation's behavior is what has gotten us into these terrible messes. I did not agree with the war in Iraq, I do not agree with the raping of our God given resources, I do not support abortion, in any form or for any reason, I do not support gay marriage as a governmentally sanctioned behavior and I do not agree with "conduct unbecoming" of any highly elected official. We have the right as Americans to expect and to hold these people to higher standards and if they violate that trust, then they should be held accountable. After all, if the most visible American leaders are immoral or corrupt in any way, then their behavior is transferred to us as a nation by those with watchful eyes. Is it really any different than claiming to be a Christian and then voting "yes" on any form of legislation against Godly principles (Republican or Democrat). I think not.

One last question. When has our government ever truly and with a benevolent heart tried to help
The poor and needy of this country? How can they send millions and billions of our tax dollars abroad in support of countries who despise our nation, yet cannot acknowledge that we have a severe problem with taking care of our own citizens? In mho, the only people who truly care and get out on the streets and put their faith to work are those who have accepted Christ as their savior and have a firm foundation in Godly principles. Obviously, our control of the government and our elected officials is lacking. Any time you rely upon man for your strength of character and leadership, you are in for a great "awakening." Please let us as a nation repent and turn back to God as our leader, defender and confidant before it is too late.

All Praise God
AlanD

Posted by: AlanD | September 8, 2008 3:23 PM

"By the way, it's not cynicism, it's satire."

There's a fine line between the two.

I think overall, there is a lack of understanding by bloggers of just exactly what community organizers do. It involves a lot of listening, negotiating, coalition building and leading. We shouldn't accept extremist views of them as being either saviors or radicals. They aren't the voices of other people, but they help people to make their own voices heard. Arguably, these are qualities that our current president is lacking.

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

LV,

Oh, no doubt Sarah Palin has the moral obligation to apologize for her personal carbon footprint.

I'm simply illustrating the ridiculous proposition that a community organizer is any kind of significant job. Yeah, it's nice that you volunteer at the local homeless shelter, but seriously,organizing basketball games in the afternoon to help keep kids off the street, while laudable, hardly qualifies you to run for president, nor does it put you on par with a mayor of any kind of town.

If Obama had worked as a dog catcher, we'd all be hearing how noble a dog catcher is and how Jesus was a dog catcher because he went after the lost sheep and dogs go after sheep and when you catch a sheep, you'll catch the dog, too.

To anyone who has even the faintest amount of critical thinking, this whole blog and most of the responses just make you laugh with their ridiculousness.

Posted by: frgough | September 8, 2008 5:07 PM

Squeaky,

Thank you again for being straightforward and patient with me. I have never been one to speak out against or in favor of any political party because each has its own self-centered, self-righteous, and self-serving motives. It is a power struggle and frankly I feel that most, but not all, politicians are corrupt and could care less about the common citizens of this country. Why is it that approximately 500 individuals have the right to dictate to the millions, even when it is evident that the majority of their constituents do not agree with their personal ideals or their voting records (Republican or Democrat). Could it be because they are the supposed elite of mind and wealth in this nation? Does someone who goes to some ivy league or any other highly touted educational institution any more competent to lead than one who does not? It is not always a question of IQ, but more often a matter of common sense and good judgment.

I understand your philosophy regarding perceived "hateful/angry" comments, but beyond my first mistake, for which I am willing to concede was pretty "aggressive," I have received nothing but rude and uncalled for persecution and the twisting of my words and intent. It appears however, that it is only my statements that are held up to scrutiny and that their "obvious" insinuations and snide remarks are not addressed. If you want to promote a "fair and balanced" arena for discussion, then please get rid of the bias and call a fish a fish regardless of its color or water salinity preference.

I must also respectfully object to not having my rebuttal to Don, Canucklehead and Bud Duncan posted to this site. Are you now about censorship? According to your own "rules" I have done nothing but "potently" defended my position.

Jason
Aka A___D

Posted by: Jason | September 8, 2008 5:14 PM

You make the point conservatism and racism is interlinked. When we are talking about issues, I call that a smear.

Smear or no smear, what I said about the origins of the conservative movement is historically true in context, but you and many conservatives refuse to address that because doing so forces the conservative side to admit that it's fundamentally wrong -- the last thing it wants. That's not at all my problem.

Posted by: Rick | September 8, 2008 5:50 PM

"I'll have one of whatever he's on."

Posted by: I and I | September 8, 2008 3:21 PM

Buzz off, I n I, I asked first.

By the way, SQUEAKY, I guess I got censored in a response to you, I was just wonnerin' how yuz know I'm a "he" in that some daze I dusn't know meself?

Posted by: canucklehead | September 8, 2008 6:11 PM

Michael -- And if you needed any more proof as to what I'm saying, consider this snippet from George Packer's "The Fall of Conservatism," published in May in the New Yorker:

Rick Liberal and Conservative views have been around since God made us . They are meant to compliment each other , work together . The Gospel of John is written by a different personality type then the Gospel of Matthew .
You can't see what the evil one has done here , we are suppose to be on the same team .

Rick you fail to listen to reason , and your wrong .
Liberalism is also connected to communism . Its connected to socialism , capitalism . Its connected to homosexual rights , sexual deviancy being promoted equal with Bibical sex . You say the religious right choosed to use power to force Bibical principles . I hear that , I listen to you and understand that . Its true also . I do not think Bibical principles are wrong to uphold in a secualr society , but to force them is empty I agree. It does not mean those Bibical principles are wrong , and it does not justify joining with folks who do in liberal circles who advocate for perversions and laws that not only support them , but promote them .

Federalism was started by a slave owner , Jefferson beat John Adams in an election , Adams was against slavery passionately . Me connecting you with the racist slave owner in big government is exactly what your doing to people who have conservative views . Pat Buchanan articulated conservative views , Stalin most likely wrote about big government and all pulling together . Also pull or die , Those ideas did not originate with them . Conservative views have been around since the beginning , so have liberal views , God made us different ,

You go to recent history and everything fits in a little black and white view point . Conservatism equals racism , liberalism equals social justice . Your close minded to having an intellectual discussion , you can't get beyond that , and you negate and minimize those you converse with by putting them in a tidy little racist pocket .

So whats your point , conservatism has its roots in racism , and thats that .
Ok .

Posted by: Michael | September 8, 2008 8:17 PM

Bud,

I have the true love of Jesus. It's called a hand up, not a hand out. You take my hand of fellowship and I'll lift you up to stand on your own two feet. But you wouldn't like it, because my first commandment is:

Thou shalt not whine.

Posted by: frgough | September 8, 2008 10:24 PM

Well good golly, frgough,

I'm sure glad for you that you've never needed anything. Get off your high horse. Not everyone has had as cushy a life as yours.

Posted by: Paul | September 8, 2008 10:51 PM

"I must also respectfully object to not having my rebuttal to Don, Canucklehead and Bud Duncan posted to this site." AlanD

I must strenuously object to being lumped in with the likes of Don. Now that Bud Duncan fellow is one of the more articulate lads who's posts often infect me w/ a sense of floating above the clouds, far above the trivia of the Obama-Palin debate unfolding on yonder terra firma, being lifted up, up, up into Nirvana.

This Bud's for you, Bud.

Posted by: canucklehead | September 9, 2008 12:19 AM

Don't cry in your beer this Saturday, Don, Trojans 27-21!

Posted by: canucklehead | September 9, 2008 1:35 PM

"Don't cry in your beer this Saturday, Don, Trojans 27-21!"

No debate there. They can't beat those west coast teams (or the ones from the south, either).

D

Posted by: Don | September 9, 2008 2:11 PM

You're right in this, what she said was poorly thought out because it could be taken as a slam against community organizers. However in context she was not criticizing community organizers across the country...she was defending herself against the storm of comments in the media about her lack of experience. She was pointing out the irony of Obama claiming (and the media accepting) community organization as leadership experience that would qualify someone for the office of the president. Obama's community organization experience was with ACORN, a political group not a group working to help the poor (which is the focus of your article). Palin was derided for being a mayor of small town and a governor of a small state. Shouldn't your criticism go both ways to be objective?

I am not happy with the tone of many in the conservative and Christian cirlces (granted much of the perceived tone is manufactured by the media for political reasons, by focusing on the few extreme types), But it would be a mistake to be reactionary and swing the pendulum way to the other side and embrace those ideals that are not God's and be excessively critical of those (although with flaws) more closely align their perspective with what is biblical.

Posted by: matt Jones | September 9, 2008 4:52 PM

You struck out again, Al N.

First, Kirsten Powers is on Faux News, so that taints anything she says.

Second, I don't take issue with her facts in the first paragraph; much of that info is indeed internet sleaze. But the "left" didn't exactly make all of it up. For example, Palin's husband was registered with the Alaskan Independence Party for a few years, even though she herself never was.

Regarding the security clearance stuff, it's clearly nonsense. Note how she uses the word "may." Palin MAY have security clearances we don't know about; Palin MAY rival Biden in her knowledge of classified material. In other words, Powers doesn't know. And she's accusing the "left" of making things up?

No, Palin is nowhere near as qualified as Obama. But it doesn't matter. We should be comparing her qualifications to Biden's, where she clearly falls short. Or better yet, we should be comparing her qualifications to those of the vice presidential candidates that John McCain passed up in his selecting of her to run for VP. Even the least qualified of them is clearly more experienced than she. Then we should ask what McCain's picking of Palin instead of clearly more qualified candidates says about his judgment.

I can't admit what isn't true, Al N.

Posted by: Don | September 9, 2008 5:11 PM

"What's up with the pooping puffin? I'd hate to see Canadian politics get as juvenile as the U.S.'s."

Posted by: carl copas | September 9, 2008 2:16 PM

That damn bird is so popular now we're thinking of making it our national symbol and assigning it as the second bomber in our Air Force.

Harper says he didn't know anything about the pooping puffin. Others say he's a Bush clone (Harper, that is, not the pooping puffin, or maybe..)so whaddya expect.

Posted by: canucklehead | September 10, 2008 12:36 AM

Canucklehead (although it is a little unclear who is saying what here)...you are criticizing others for their hateful approach...and you may be right, it is so easy when we are arguing what we deeply believe or in defense of the faith become angry and allow pride to creep in and drive our tone and words. Read through your own posts here and evaluate your tone ...its definitely coming across as very condescending

Posted by: matt Jones | September 10, 2008 11:17 AM

If you can attribute his comments to "humor" then please attribute anyone else's comments who are in opposition to "playing the devils advocate"

He may use condescending humor to make a point...yet it is still condescending and the very thing he clearly is turned off to in other people.

Posted by: matt Jones | September 10, 2008 12:09 PM

Don,
As I said, Kirsten Powers is a registered Dem and former Clinton employee. When she's on Fox, she's almost always defending the Dems. Her article about Sarah Palin was pointing out how strategically stupid it's been to attack Palin -- how it's hurting Obama.

And goodness, Don, do you ACTUALLY buy into the Washington Post (talk about a biased news source) argument that Palin not on the Sunday news shows meant she was unprepared? Geesh, she was JUST nominated! She had to go back to Alaska to take care of some state and family business. Gosh, give her a break!

I compare Palin's qualifications with Obama's because he's by far the more unqualified. No one can say "she's unqualified" unless they're willing to admit that so is Obama! Even on this blog, the only evidences I heard that Obama is qualified is because of his "political experience", "intellectual experience", and his "humanitarian experience". No one has ever shown me how he has any "leadership experience" -- because he has none, zero, nada!
>> OK, I'll admit it, Barack Obama is a skilled politician, very smart, and (except for born or unborn infants) quite a humanitarian. Now tell me what I'm missing -- how does any of this indicate that he can lead?

Posted by: AlN | September 10, 2008 12:27 PM

"Liberal and Conservative views have been around since God made us. They are meant to compliment each other, work together."

That's right; God created conservative and liberal, not conservative and reactionary. So because the Republican Party has eliminated liberal views from their party, we can say they're foisting a perverted agenda on the country and trying to "redefine" dialogue.

Posted by: I and I | September 10, 2008 4:48 PM

The posters on this blog are pathetic in their outrage against community organizers. Anyone who has ever done outreach based on deeply held moral values is a community activist and organizer. To malign Obama's work as a community organizer is to malign all of us who care deeply about and work diligently for the better of our communities. You malign those of us who work day in and day out ensuring the elderly receive the medications and healthcare they need, that families receive the social services - daycare, tutoring, parenting classes - they need, that people in need are helped as best as we can with whatever limited resources we can muster. Some of us work with faith-based initiatives, some us work with secular initiatives - but all of us who work to better are communities have been defined with the same contempt and disdain as people whose "liberal" points of view banded together to work and walk with Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, people whose liberal points of view heeded the call and joined the Peace Corps and Vista and Americorps. . . and you laugh and belittle us because we are "community organizers". How so very American-Christian.

Posted by: Tess | September 13, 2008 2:21 PM