You don’t think you’re really fooling anyone with that argument, do you, Michele? The truth is, the economic crisis McCain is really worried about is his own. He’s down to $85 million, and Obama’s going to spend $40 million in Florida alone. McCain is worried that if he performs poorly in the debate, as he’s likely to do, it will sink his campaign for good.
For those who still have a sense of humor:
“McCain Supports Bailing Out of Debates”
Saying that “desperate times call for desperate measures,” GOP presidential nominee John McCain announced today that he would personally bail out of Friday’s scheduled presidential debate.
“As of today, I am officially bailing out of the debate,” Sen. McCain told reporters in Washington today. “And I invite Sen. Obama to join me in this bailout effort.”
Sen. McCain said he would be putting together what he called “a comprehensive debate bailout package,” which could include bailing out of the other two scheduled debates as well.
When asked what motivated his dramatic bailout proposal, Sen. McCain said, “When I woke up this morning and I saw those terrible numbers, I knew that a bailout was necessary to keep those numbers from getting worse.”
Mr. McCain refused to answer a reporter’s question about whether he was talking about economic numbers or poll numbers, saying, “I am bailing out of any response to that question.”
GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said that she would join in her running mate’s bailout effort by bailing out of her debate with Delaware senator Joseph Biden.
In a campaign stop in Michigan, Gov. Palin detailed a series of bold initiatives, including building a twenty-foot-high fence between her and the press.”
Andy Borowitz

Gee, Michele, I guess you missed my post, so I’m re-sending it.
You don’t really think anyone’s going to buy this argument, do you Michele? The only economic crisis McCain is worried about is his own. He’s down to $85 million and Obama is going to spend $40 million in Florida alone. He’s afraid that if he performs poorly in the debate, as he is likely to do, it will sink his campaign for good.
For those who still have a sense of humor:
“McCain Supports Bailing Out of Debates”
Saying that “desperate times call for desperate measures,” GOP presidential nominee John McCain announced today that he would personally bail out of Friday’s scheduled presidential debate.
“As of today, I am officially bailing out of the debate,” Sen. McCain told reporters in Washington today. “And I invite Sen. Obama to join me in this bailout effort.”
Sen. McCain said he would be putting together what he called “a comprehensive debate bailout package,” which could include bailing out of the other two scheduled debates as well.
When asked what motivated his dramatic bailout proposal, Sen. McCain said, “When I woke up this morning and I saw those terrible numbers, I knew that a bailout was necessary to keep those numbers from getting worse.”
Mr. McCain refused to answer a reporter’s question about whether he was talking about economic numbers or poll numbers, saying, “I am bailing out of any response to that question.”
GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said that she would join in her running mate’s bailout effort by bailing out of her debate with Delaware senator Joseph Biden.
In a campaign stop in Michigan, Gov. Palin detailed a series of bold initiatives, including building a twenty-foot-high fence between her and the press.”
–Andy Borowitz

“Obama votes ‘not present’ on financial crisis”

It would be just as valid to say that the Republicans are playing politics while the Democrats are trying to get something passed. Did you read the 3-page proposal the Dept of Treasury initially sent over? Aside from probably being unconstitutional it was vague, rushed, impractical, and just as likely to make the problem worse.
There is no more right-wing outlet in the country than the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. Here is what they said about the helpfulness of John McCain on these issues:
“How is it supposed to reassure people to hear Mr. McCain intone, as he did yesterday, the words ‘derivatives’ and ‘credit default swaps’ as if it’s the first time he’d ever heard of them?”
So apparently it is not a partisan issue but a substantive one. Perhaps this is the reason Senator McCain is not comfortable with the idea of a debate this week.
Have you done any reading on the bailout options, instead of skimming along the surface of the partisan sniping? What is your diagnosis of the problem and your recommendation of a solution, including how to pay for it without triggering massive inflation? If your answer is that you don’t know, then perhaps you should do some more research before you pick a side.

It’s an election! Everyone is playing politics.

What a terrible leader he is! He claimed defeat in Iraq, says he doesn’t know what to do in this crisis, refuses to pass an energy bill, hasn’t passed any meaningful legislation in the last two years and plays politics with everything he does. He makes me so nuts, I’m praying this prayer:
ESV Psalm 109:8 May his days be few; may another take his office!
————————
You should be careful what you pray for, Michele. Do you remember the last time conservatives prayed for someone in political power to be removed from office? I believe it in 2003 was Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, and James Dobson who suggested that Christians should pray for God to “remove three justices from the Supreme Court.”
Just 18 months after that Chief Justice Rehnquist was diagnosed with the illness that would eventually take his life. In 2007 D. James Kennedy suffered a massive heart attack and stroke that would take his life later that year. And in that same year Jerry Falwell was found dead in his office from a massive heart attack.
Galatians 6:7 “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

“ESV Psalm 109:8 May his days be few; may another take his office!”
So now you’re praying Senator Reid will die? Is this the Reformed perspective?

“ESV Psalm 109:8 May his days be few; may another take his office!”
So now you’re praying Senator Reid will die? Is this the Reformed perspective?
—————-
Hey, be thankful she is only praying and not building a bonfire around a stake. THAT is the original “Reformed Perspective” on dealing with those who disagree with you.

“It’s an election! Everyone is playing politics.”
no doubt. is anyone surprised that mccain would want to bail out of the debate when the subject of the debate would be dictated by the economic problems? smart move, rove apprentice.
as for reid, michele, he never told mccain to “stay away” he told him that his presence wouldn’t be helpful. and i couldn’t agree more! mcthusela has nothing of worth to offer when it comes to a problem that he helped to create. again, in the words of sarah pal-insane, “thinks but nothinks.”
also, reid never told mccain to drop everything he was doing, pack his bags and come to d.c. to give his input. he was calling him out for his “brilliant solution” to the problem. apparently mccain doesn’t have one (or he’s keeping it to himself, just like his knowledge of how to capture bin laden…. YEAH RIGHT).

Um, McCain admitted today he hadn’t even bothered to read the 2 1/2 page proposal the Administration sent to Congress. That’s how concerned he is about this crisis and how much thought he’s given to the proposed solution.
He also lied to David Letterman when he called to cancel his appearance on tonight’s show, saying he was rushing back to DC on the next plane to deal with the crisis. He stayed in New York to do an interview with Katie Couric and meet with Lady de Rothschild. He was still in N.Y. tonight.
And speaking of playing politics, the campaign released a whole set of “talking points” about this maneuver of McCain’s for Republicans to make use of. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if one of them isn’t “accuse the Democrats of playing politics instead of trying to get something passed.” Way to toe the party line, Michele!

Sunday: McCain Endorses Bailout… Tuesday: McCain Says He Hasn’t Actually Read Bailout Plan… Wednesday: Obama Leads In Polls, McCain “Suspends” Campaign To Focus Exclusively On Bailout…Then Tapes Interview With Katie Couric… Wednesday Night: Dems Say They’ve Already Reached Deal On Bailout
(headlines from huffpost)
So if Congress agrees on a deal for the bailout by Friday, I guess that means McCain will show up for the debate, right? Because as Letterman was saying tonight, something’s a little fishy about this whole thing. Wouldn’t it be convenient for McCain if his move not to participate in the debate led to a re-scheduling that really crowded the schedule between now and the election, so they’d couldn’t have four debates, and the logical one to cancel would be . . . you guessed it, the vice-presidential debate featuring not-yet-ready-for-prime-time-I-can-see-Russia-from-my-back-yard-make-rape-victims-pay-for-their-own-exams-my-pastor-is-a-witch-hunter Sarah Palin!
I guess you can’t blame them for not wanting to turn her loose, especially after she couldn’t name a single piece of economic “reform” legislation that McCain had pushed through Congress in his entire career. But to be fair, that’s because there are none.

“I guess you can’t blame them for not wanting to turn her loose, especially after she couldn’t name a single piece of economic “reform” legislation that McCain had pushed through Congress in his entire career. But to be fair, that’s because there are none.”
When you couple that with the fact that many conservatives are having buyers’ remorse over her selection, I can see why he would want to hide her under a bushel. Can you imagine all the Dan Quayle tapes his campaign has probably been showing her of late…trying to get her to NOT look as bad as him?
Look, she may be a really nice gal and all, but she is clearly out of her league in this. The right wing nut jobs had a virtual Palingasm when she was nominated, but it may turn out that they killed any chance the GOP has of winning the White House.
Heck…you know you’re campaign is in the crapper when Rod Dreher, one of the lead evangelists for Palin a couple of weeks ago, goes sour on her.

“Look who’s playing politics during a crisis”
Our very own Michele McGinty, that’s who!

I can’t believe a Christian person is praying for another human being to die.
Of course, Reid is a Mormon, so she probably doesn’t consider him a Christian, so it doesn’t count.

“He makes me so nuts, I’m praying this prayer:
ESV Psalm 109:8 May his days be few; may another take his office!”
Hmm…. spoken like McCain… a real hothead. Time to put down the crack pipe, sweetie. You’re annoying people, and you sound more than a little nuts.

You’re annoying people,
Only the liberals who choose to read (remember the whole “right to choose” thing that you all favor?)

ah, good, so you’ve agreed to subscribe to the “right to choose” ideology. somehow i don’t believe that you’ll stop criticizing pro-choice advocates though.

No. I will not stop criticizing pro-abortion advocates.
My question was (which has remained unanswered) when has Obama voted to restrict abortion in any way?
In fact, when has Obama voted for medical care for breathing babies who were born as a result of botched abortions?

Is everything about abortion MZ? Is that the only issue?

“”ESV Psalm 109:8 May his days be few; may another take his office!”
So now you’re praying Senator Reid will die? Is this the Reformed perspective?
—————-
Hey, be thankful she is only praying and not building a bonfire around a stake. THAT is the original “Reformed Perspective” on dealing with those who disagree with you.”
Yeah. The modern Reformed Christians at most would microwave you. Too messy, this disemboweling and burning at the stake stuff.

“No. I will not stop criticizing pro-abortion advocates.”
that’s fine with me, but if you’re attacking pro-abortion targets, you’ll find it hard to criticize anyone. i don’t know many people who advocate abortions, obama included.
“My question was (which has remained unanswered) when has Obama voted to restrict abortion in any way?”
your question as it’s stated is irrelevant. obama is pro-choice, so why would he legislate anything to restrict abortions? because he’s not pro-abortion, he has voted on legislation that would reduce unwanted pregnancies and therefore also abortions:
* S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 obama voted yes, mccain voted no
* sponsored S.2916/H.R.5795, mccain did not participate
* co-sponsored S.21/H.R.819 “prevention first act”, mccain did not participate
“In fact, when has Obama voted for medical care for breathing babies who were born as a result of botched abortions?”
since you keep eluding to obama’s vote in the illinois legislature, i guess you’re attacking his “present” vote again? but for him to vote “for medical care for breathing babies who were born as a result of botched abortions” would have been pointless since existing illinois law covered that (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_alive_baloney.html)

Here’s where “fact” check becomes a little inaccurate.
The 1975 law specifies medical care should be given to infants who, before being aborted, are considered viable – by the very doctor aborting them.
This led to very tiny born alive babies being taken to dirty laundry rooms to die alone – and no law was being broken.
The born alive bill that Obama opposed would have required that the attending doctor get a second opinion on the viability of the born-alive infant. Obama opposed this because if a born alive baby was mistakenly considered “pre-viable” before birth, but was in reality a viable infant, this would interfere with the mother’s “original intent” to kill her child, so the child must die.
but if you’re attacking pro-abortion targets, you’ll find it hard to criticize anyone. i don’t know many people who advocate abortions, obama included.
If you run on a platform that allows any abortion, at any time, for any reason…that’s pro-abortion.
Driving is legal also, but we put reasonable limits on it.
because he’s not pro-abortion, he has voted on legislation that would reduce unwanted pregnancies and therefore also abortions:
The fact is that Obamam has a 100% NARAL rating.
He support my tax dollars being used to fund abortions. ANY abortion.
Since abortion is legal, pro-abortion (like yourself) folks might consider donating money to Planned Parenthood directly to provide abortions for women who cannot afford it.

sorry, but the facts listed are not “inaccurate.”
“The 1975 law specifies medical care should be given to infants who, before being aborted, are considered viable – by the very doctor aborting them.”
you then would rather have the state forcing doctors (who know viability better than legislators (see SCHIAVO)) to expend resources on a fetus that has no chance of living. and who would pay for that? what would happen to the baby that survives an abortion? would you force the mother to keep it or put it under the control of the state? who would pay for that?
“This led to very tiny born alive babies being taken to dirty laundry rooms to die alone – and no law was being broken.”
and how many times did this happen? surely you have statistics of documented cases.
“If you run on a platform that allows any abortion, at any time, for any reason…that’s pro-abortion.”
that’s your fundamentalist, extremist view. and it’s wrong. according to you, there is no such thing as pro-choice, because even in the case of rape or incest or health risks, allowing a woman the right to choose what to do with her body and life is unacceptable. no wonder you like palin so much. you’re both extremists. i respect that (but strongly disagree). in your view, you’re either all in, or totally against. that’s why you think that a doctor who performs abortions is incapable of respecting life. that’s why fundamentalists don’t understand agnostics. that’s why the religious right can’t stand it when moderate republicans capitulate. sorry, but life isn’t all black and white.
your label of pro-abortion is wrong. pro-abortionists accept forced abortions (i.e. china’s one-child policy), pro-choice advocates do not. get it through your head – pro-choice advocates believe that pregnant woman should have the right to chose, and for that right to be protected abortions should remain legal.
i’m neither for nor against abortion, so i can’t be labeled as pro-abortion or anti-abortion. i don’t have a problem with a woman carrying her pregnancy to full term and i don’t have a problem with a woman aborting her pregnancy… but then unlike you, i don’t define a baby or infant as being an inviable fetus either. i believe that is a decision for her and her husband/boyfriend/family/whatever to decide – not me, not you, and definitely not obama, biden, mccain, or palin.
so is your crusade biblically driven?

what would happen to the baby that survives an abortion? would you force the mother to keep it or put it under the control of the state? who would pay for that?
Ask Gianna Jesson.
and how many times did this happen?
At least two who testified. How many times are acceptable to you?
your label of pro-abortion is wrong.
That would be your opinion. I believe that a person who supports the “choice” to kill a child – unrestricted access to any abortion at any time, for any reason – to be pro-abortion.
get it through your head – pro-choice advocates believe that pregnant woman should have the right to chose, and for that right to be protected abortions should remain legal.
Get it through YOUR head – I understand your argument, I simply disagree. And I’m intellectually honest enough to note that when I am “pro-choice” to choose something, I’m generally “pro” that “something”.
If you support unrestricted, unfettered, abortions at any time in a pregnancy, for any reason, with no limitation whatsoever, I find that to be pro-abortion.
so is your crusade biblically driven?
You have not seen me write of early term abortions. You have only seen me speak with conviction about letting born-alive infants die without medical care. You have seen me speak with passion against late term abortions and partial birth abortion.
I accept the Bible as the Word of God, but my “crusade” is based on my respect of life. My position comes from knowing and loving women who have had abortions and who have suffered the aftermath. It comes from losing five babies before they were born (yes, they were baby humans, I was not carrying blogs of pig flesh).
I generally say little about early term abortions. They will be with us always. But I find the idea of “partial birth” abortions, late term abortions, and “live induced abortions” repugnant, despicable, This comes from losing one baby at 18 1/2 weeks and giving birth to another at 31 1/2 weeks – within the time frame of “partial birth abortion”.
If you support this barbaric procedure – even when it’s done on an infant who is fully viable and capable of feeling pain…yes. I doubt your ability to respect life.
i respect that (but strongly disagree). in your view, you’re either all in, or totally against.
Hmmm…then you read my comments selectively.
I would support abortion in the case where the life or health of the mother is involved.
I would not support, but would understand and not prevent abortion in the case of rape or incest. This comes from knowing and loving a rape victim who gave birth to a child as a result. I would counsel a woman in that position to speak to a woman who has been there.
In the case of an anomaly that could not be survived, I would counsel a woman to speak with somebody who has been in that position – I know several.
but life isn’t all black and white.
If you support any abortion, at any time, for any reason whatsoever, with zero restrictions, that’s pretty black and white.
And it’s pro-abortion.
I accept “pro-choice” from a person who accepts early term abortions. But not from a person who would support the choice of a woman who has carried a child for 6 or 8 or 9 months and choose to abort a child who is capable of breathing on its own and who is capable of feeling pain when a pair of scissors are pushed into its skull so its brain can be suctioned out.
By the time the child is capable of feeling pain, the woman should have made her “choice”. Otherwise…when DO you think a child should be given the right to live? Obviously not at birth – not if you oppose the “born alive” bill. When?

I only support abortion in the first trimester – unless something goes horribly wrong with the woman’s health later on.
But my religion allows abortion. We do not believe life begins at conception. Why do your religious beliefs get to trump mine?

But my religion allows abortion. We do not believe life begins at conception. Why do your religious beliefs get to trump mine?
Why? If our elected representatives vote that way, that would be the “why”.
That’s why we vote our consciences.

You weren’t speaking about votes. I was asking why on a moral level, your religion trumps mine. Because it’s superseded?

On a “moral” level, my religion does not “trump” yours.
I believe that one the issue of late term abortions, that any person who supports the killing of a viable infant who is capable of living on its own and capable of feeling pain, is “pro-abortion”. I have doubts about the level of respect for life for a person who would oppose medical care for “born alive” babies.
I can only advocate for what I believe.
Obviously, you are free to support any abortion, at any time, for any reason, with no restrictions. Although I can understand and sympathize with a woman who feels backed into a corner and see no other alternative (and in a few cases would not condemn or scold her), I consider the killing of a viable infant who is capable of feeling pain to be immoral. As I would consider the deliberate inflicting of pain on any human being. You (of course) are free to disagree.
It is the platform of “any abortion at any time for any reason with no restrictions” that I find the most immoral.

“Ask Gianna Jesson.”
i asked you.
“At least two who testified.”
two. is that all? in how many years? and they were from illinois? and they fell through this loophole? sources?
“How many times are acceptable to you?”
i prefer none. still, to me that’s not enough to warrant making abortion illegal. sorry.
“That would be your opinion. I believe that a person who supports the “choice” to kill a child – unrestricted access to any abortion at any time, for any reason – to be pro-abortion.”
no, that would be the generally accepted definition of pro-choice vs. pro-abortion, not the fundamentalist definition. your belief is something that i cannot argue against, so believe what you will. all i can say to you is that your belief is extreme (i.e. you’re in the minority, and way outside of the mainstream). supporting a right to chose is different than supporting abortion. sorry if you don’t comprehend the difference, but that’s not my problem.
look up the definition of abortion and tell me how many sources define it as a process or action for terminating a pregnancy and how many define it as the killing of a child. you’ll find that ONLY fundamentalists define it your way. that only extremists define it your way.
“I would support abortion in the case where the life or health of the mother is involved… I would not prevent abortion in the case of rape or incest. This comes from knowing and loving a rape victim who gave birth to a child as a result. I would counsel a woman in that position to speak to a woman who has been there.”
“If you support any abortion, at any time, for any reason whatsoever, with zero restrictions, that’s pretty black and white. And it’s pro-abortion.”
then, you are pro-abortion by your own definition. and you and i are not so different. however, i would still say that you and i are pro-choice, and not pro-abortion. would you agree?
“By the time the child is capable of feeling pain, the woman should have made her ‘choice’. Otherwise…when DO you think a child should be given the right to live? Obviously not at birth – not if you oppose the ‘born alive’ bill. When?”
in theory, i don’t oppose a “born alive” bill. it depends on the intent of that bill, and it depends on the effect of such a bill (who would care for the infant, who would be responsible, would its intent be to limit access to abortions, et cetera). look, i understand that of the number of women who have abortions, very few take the decision lightly (this is the biggest twist of the truth that pro-lifers make, saying that women make this choice “on a whim”), and of those the vast majority deal with the situation within the first trimester…
“By the time the child is capable of feeling pain, the woman should have made her “choice”.”
… there are a few (i went to high school with girl, in fact) who don’t know that they are even pregnant until well into the second trimester. add to that some states that have such harsh restrictions that make finding a clinic difficult and are so conservative that young kids don’t know what to do until it’s late into fetal development. then there are the rare situations where something happens between the first and third trimester that complicates the pregnancy or some other life changing situation. sometimes things happen between the time when most people think that abortion is acceptable and when they don’t. those times should be few, and they are, statistically.
i’m glad that you can have the clear conscience to dictate to that woman what she must do with her body and the rest of her life by taking her choice away, but i cannot. it is not up to me to decide. it’s her life, not mine. she has to live with the result, i don’t.
but back to the statistics – i see this as such a very, very limited case that it’s not worth making abortions illegal. my point about a black and white world… if we lived in a perfect world, there wouldn’t be abortions. there wouldn’t be unwanted pregnancies or unwanted children and we wouldn’t have war and we wouldn’t have famine. unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world and there will be abortions. if we make them illegal, they will still occur but they will be back-alley, coat-hanger, amateur, bloody, and deadly where both the fetus is destroyed and the mother dies. take your pick. i choose to keep abortions legal and safe and to do what i can to reduce them.
my belief is that obama will keep abortions legal but work to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies. mccain (and certainly palin) would rather try to make all abortions illegal. even if this was turned back to a states issue, some states would automatically make abortions illegal (some are staged to do so, being triggered by roe v. wade being overturned). and to me, women are women, with the same issues and life decisions regardless of which state they live in.
when you talk about tax dollars being used to fund abortions, consider this. should the poor woman be deprived of the same right to choose that a rich woman has? if we made abortions illegal, women with enough money could travel to europe or mexico where they could still get the procedure while the poor woman would get the hanger. i pay my local taxes without complaint because i see that the money funds public schools where even the poorest in my community get the same educational opportunities as my own daughters. there are certain rights that i consider paramount and beyond petty pennies taxed.

I j ust deliniated my defintion of “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” and it appears to go over your head.
when you talk about tax dollars being used to fund abortions, consider this. should the poor woman be deprived of the same right to choose that a rich woman has?
If it means that much to you to have all women have access to unlimited abortions, fund Planned Parenthood and donate money earmarked for abortions.

“I j ust deliniated my defintion of “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” and it appears to go over your head.”
you defined yourself as a pro-abortionist. that didn’t go over my head.
“If it means that much to you to have all women have access to unlimited abortions, fund Planned Parenthood and donate money earmarked for abortions.”
just as soon as you donate your children and money to fund wars to the pentagon.

nice post,I like the post thank you