President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 31, 2008 11:54 PM UTC

RNC suspending most of 1st day business

  • 98 Comments
  • by: DavidThi808

from ABC News

Officials from the Republican National Convention and the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain have announced that they will suspend most of their convention program for Monday and will only tackle official business that is required to start the convention.

it goes on to discuss what has the Republicans really upset:

Besides threatening to wreak havoc on the Gulf Coast, Hurricane Gustav is creating a public relations nightmare for Republicans, who are scheduled to open their party’s convention Monday in St. Paul, Minn., the same day Gustav is expected to make landfall on the Gulf Coast near New Orleans.

Tweet
Share

Comments

98 thoughts on “RNC suspending most of 1st day business”

    1. They’ve postponed, if not cancelled.

      This is a chance for New Orleans, LA, Bush and FEMA to redeem themselves, and Jindl is looking so much better than his Dem predecessor.

      Political speculation and observations aside, I am glad to see they’ve gotten so many people to evacuate, which means there will be less loss of human lives and treasure.

      Nevertheless, Gustav is a bummer.

      1. What exactly do you think his predecessor failed to do?  Rove and the GOP tried to pin the  Katrina response on her.  They lied.  They said that she had not asked for help.  They lied.  They said she did not declare a state of disaster.  They lied.

        When the GOP says something about Katrina, you can safely assume that they are either lying or wrong.

          1. Look at FEMA’s charter.  

            It is to support the state and local efforts, when requested.

            States have the primary responsibility for civil defence, search and rescue, and to protect their citizens.  Only in international war does the federal government take the lead and have authority to act without state involvement.

            School Bus Nagin, and the former LA Governor Kathleen Blanco (D-LA) had the primary responsibility for the disaster after the disaster.  The Federal Government(Coast Guard and Navy) rescued the majority of the people rescued.

            “Brownie” aside, the Federal Goverment did pretty well in Katrina. Next door under Republican Governor Haley Barbour, there was a different result.

            Katrina actually hit Mississippi the hardest.  New Orleans was on the back side.

            (Counterclockwise flow around a low pressure system)

            http://flhurricane.com/googlem…

            On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina slammed into Mississippi’s coast, killing 231 people,[25] devastating the state’s $2.7 billion-a-year casino industry and leaving tens of thousands homeless. [26] (see Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi). Barbour’s response was characterized by a concerted effort at evacuation, tough-minded talk on looters and an unwillingness to blame the federal government.[27] His response was compared, favorably, to that of Rudy Giuliani in the wake of the September 11 attacks.[28][29]

            Barbour credited the countless government workers who helped southern Mississippi cope with the hurricane. But Barbour was praised by the coast’s citizens as a strong leader who can communicate calm to the public and provide “a central decision-making point for when things get balled up or go sideways, which they do,” as Barbour says.[30]

            While the reconstruction process doesn’t dictate how localities should rebuild, Barbour has touted New Urbanist principles in constructing more compact communities. “They have the chance to build some things very differently,” he says. “The goal is to build the coast back like it can be, rather than simply like it was.”[30]

            The evacuation order was issued by local officials more than 24 hours before the hurricane hit, and Mississippi activated 750 National Guard troops as of August 29, the day of the hurricane.

            1. Blanco asked for FEMA aid and did not get it.

              She was “told” by the Bush Administration that she needed to Federalize the Guard if she wanted help, which – as you point out above – is exactly what the state is not supposed to do in the event of an emergency, since they need the Guard to provide for civil defense and search & rescue.

              Now, there’s enough blame to go around for Katrina, including local police blocking people from evacuating, the mayor not being prepared, Blanco for not doing a good job at co-ordinating…  But the Bush Administration did so much wrong in Katrina that it will carry its blame and shame through history.

            2. Next door under Republican Governor Haley Barbour, there was a different result.

              Emphasis added.  Given the GOP’s history, I tend to think that was deliberate.  They were trying to make Barbour look good and Blanco look bad.

              Everything the Bush admin has done in the past 8 years has been to try to increase the GOP majority.  The Federal Katrina response is just one of many egregious abuses.

              And, yes, Nagin’s PD did not cover themselves in glory.  Seems to be something endemic in PDs.  See the Milwaukee arrests of protesters and reporters this weekend for another example of police overreach (helped, again, by Bush’s FBI).

      2. What exactly do you think his predecessor failed to do?  Rove and the GOP tried to pin the  Katrina response on her.  They lied.  They said that she had not asked for help.  They lied.  They said she did not declare a state of disaster.  They lied.

        When the GOP says something about Katrina, you can safely assume that they are either lying or wrong.

  2. You can track the storm here.

    Right now, Gustav is aiming to the west of New Orleans, which could make the storm more devastating than Katrina because the greatest damage to a coastline occurs to the east of the eye. Storm surges, which topped New Orleans levees when they reached 20 feet after Katrina, are forecast at 12-16 feet, though this could increase if Gustav gains steam as it heads north.

      1. Just evidence to me there is a Supreme Power and she don’t like ugly!

        The GOP were praying for rain on Obama and instead got their own Convention mostly “washed out” by a deluge.

  4. and sincerely hope and pray that this storm will turn away or fizzle it IS hard not to think about James Dobson’s prayers for a deluge of biblical proportions to drown out the Obama acceptance speech.  I don’t believe that petty prayers to do our opponents harm are worthy of devine consideration but Dobson seemed to think so.  To be fair, enough of his followers were appalled that he decided to call the prayer effort off.  Decent people, leader beneath contempt, even if he meant it in jest.  Not funny.  

  6. from the HuffPo

    The McCain campaign has gone to great lengths to present the selection of Sarah Palin as one made after a careful, meticulous vetting process. But evidence continues to suggest that the Arizona Republican made his VP choice with surprising haste.

    On Saturday, a Democrat tasked with opposition research contacted the Huffington Post with this piece of information: as of this weekend, the McCain campaign had not gone through old newspaper articles from the Valley Frontiersman, Palin’s hometown newspaper.

    from the Daily News

    Sarah Palin’s hometown rallied around her as mayor – now Republicans wonder if the rest of America will warm up to the surprise pick from cold country.

    Though her mother-in-law has doubts.

    Faye Palin admitted she enjoys hearing Barack Obama speak, and still hasn’t decided which way she’ll vote.

    “We don’t agree on everything. But I respect her passion,” she said. “Being pro-life is who Sarah is.”

    from DailyKOS

    Here is Palin’s response to a candidate questionnaire for the Alaska 2006 gubernatorial race:

    11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

    SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance

      2. The Pledge wasn’t even written until 1892,when a minister composed a somewhat different version and published it in a children’s magazine. Whether the Founding Fathers would have found a loyalty oath to the flag “good enough” is another question, but, despite Palin’s Hallmark version of history, they never had the chance.

      3. who was married with two children when it was changed still sometimes stumbles over it as it wasn’t there the whole time she was a kid in school or through most of her 20s.  Even my older brother remembers making the switch in grade school. My understanding is that it was inserted to contrast us with those Godless commies during the Cold War.

      5. I would say, that Sarah is absolutly right on this.  While not in the pledge until the 20th century, It was the opinion of the founders from the birth of our nation.

        Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

            There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

            Article XXXII  That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.  (until 1876)

        In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.”

        Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

           Article XXXV  That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

            That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;

            wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851)

        Articles of Confederation (November 15, 1777), were proposed and signed.  They constituted the government in America during the period between the end of the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Constitution.  The Articles were finally ratified by the states on March 1, 1781:

            … on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy seven.

            And whereas it has pleased the Great Governor of the world to incline the hearts of the Legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union.  [p.29]

        Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

            Article XXXVIII.  That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.  [p.568]

        The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

            The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

            Chapter VI, Article I  [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make

        and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _____, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

            Part I, Article III  And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law:

        and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.”  [p.429]

        Continental Congress (September 10, 1782), in response to the need for Bibles which again arose, granted universal approval to print “a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.”  … This edition has come to be known as the Bible of the Revolution.  The following Endorsement of Congress was printed on its front page.

            Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled… recommended this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize [Robert Aitken] to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.  [pp.148-149]

        Continental Congress (1783), ratified a peace treaty with Great Britain at the close of

        the Revolutionary War.  The treaty began:

            In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.  It having pleased the Divine Providence

        to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the

        Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith… and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences…  [p.149]

        Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the:

            Protestant religion. (in force until 1877)

        The Constitution stipulated:

            Article I, Section VI.  And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws.  And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law.  [p.469]

        Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), stated:

            Frame of Government,  Section 9.  And each member [of the Legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked.  

        And I do acknowledge the Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian] religion. And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.”          

        The Constitution of the United States(September 17, 1787), reads:

            Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2:  If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted)…

            Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.

            [Of note is the fact that virtually every one of the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution of 1787, were members of Christian denominations:  29 were Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, … [and] 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican.]  [p. 180]

        Note:  There were also two who were Roman Catholic, and one was an open Deist  Dr. Benjamin Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to

        all denominations.

        What did the Constitution mean in 1787 by “no religious test” ?   (Steve Lefemine)

            The very last sentence of the last substantive article (Article VI.) of the Constitution states:

            The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial

        Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

        1)  The US Constitution went into effect June 21, 1788 as New Hampshire became the ninth

           State to ratify, as required by Article VII.

        2) The first ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights) were ratified effective December 15, 1791.

        3)  As can be seen by study of the numerous state constitutions which contained statements  requiring governors, legislators, and others appointed or elected to public office to make     declarations as to their belief in Protestant Christianity, the divine inspiration of both the Old and New Testaments, and / or a future state of rewards and punishments, some after 1791 and into the 1800’s, the last sentence of Article VI. of the US Constitution did not  

        preclude such required declarations of belief in general Christianity by officials of civil government in the states.

        4)   The term “religion” in 1787 meant “the Duty which we owe our Creator, and the Manner of discharging it,..”         It was to “be directed only by Reason and Convictions, not by Force or

           Violence; and therefore all Men [were] equally entitled to the free exercise of Religion,   according to the Dictates of Conscience; and [it was] “the mutual Duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love, and Charity towards each other.”  (Virginia Bill of Rights,

           June 12, 1776) [pp.627-628]).  

        5)   The Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty (January 16, 1786) stated:  “Well aware that   Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal  punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations… are a departure from the plan of the   Holy Author of our religion.” [emphasis added]  [p.628]

        6)   In 1787, the term “religion” included the various forms of Christianity expressed by the   different Christian denominations.  The phrase, “no religious test” in 1787 meant there would be “no denominational test,” as we would understand it today in 2004; no test as

           to whether a man was a Presbyterian, Baptist, or Anglican; however, “no religious test” did not mean any exclusion of a required declaration of Christian beliefs for men aspiring  to office in civil government, as can be seen by examination of the early state constitutions.

        7)   David Barton states, “Our current understanding of what constitutes a religious test was  considerably different from that of early Americans, as demonstrated by this excerpt from

           the 1796 Tennessee constitution:”

                  Article VIII, Section II. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of  rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.

                  Article XI, Section IV. That no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state.

                  “A fixed set of religious beliefs for an office holder is prescribed in Article VIII, and then  a religious test is prohibited in Article XI.  Obviously, in their view, requiring a belief in God and in future rewards and punishments was not a religious test.

        “… Prescribing a requirement professing ‘I, ______, do profess faith in God the   Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed  for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament   to be given by divine inspiration [DELAWARE, 1776]’ was not considered a religious  test.”

                    [The Myth of Separation, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, 1991]

          U.S. Constitution to War Between the States (1787 to 1865)

        Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the:

            Protestant religion.  (in force until 1877)

        The Constitution stipulated:

            Article I, Section VI.  And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws.  And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law.  [p.469]

        The Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated:

            Article XXII  Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall… make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

        “I, _____, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” [p.203]

        Constitution of the State of Tennessee (1796), stated:

            Article VIII, Section II.  No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.  [pp.580-581]

        John Jay (1745-1829), was the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President George Washington.  He was a Founding Father,

        a member of the First and Second Continental Congresses… He was very instrumental in causing the Constitution to be ratified by writing the Federalist Papers, along with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

        On October 12, 1816, John Jay admonished:

            Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

         [p.318]  [emphasis added]

        Constitution of the State of Mississippi (1817), stated:

            No person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the State.  [p.451]

        The Constitution of the State of Connecticut (until 1818), contained the wording:

           The People of this State… by the Providence of God… hath the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State… and forasmuch as the free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility, and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion… hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability

        of Churches and Commonwealth; and the denial thereof, the disturbances, if not the ruin of both.  [p.179]

        Congress of the United States of America (1822), ratified in both the House and Senate of the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, the Convention for Indemnity under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814.  It begins with these words:

            In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.  [pp.167-168]

        Definition of RELIGION.  

        RELIGION.  Includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, and in man’s obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties… the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion.  [Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

        Note:  David Barton states, “Our current understanding of what constitutes a religious test was

                  considerably different from that of early Americans, as demonstrated by this excerpt from

                  the 1796 Tennessee constitution:”

                       Article VIII, Section II. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of

                       rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.

                       Article XI, Section IV. That no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification

                       to any office or public trust under this state.

                  “A fixed set of religious beliefs for an office holder is prescribed in Article VIII, and then a

                   religious test is prohibited in Article XI.  Obviously, in their view, requiring a belief in God

                   and in future rewards and punishments was not a religious test.

                  “… Prescribing a requirement professing ‘I, ______, do profess faith in God the Father,

                  and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore;

                  and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by

                  divine inspiration [DELAWARE, 1776]’ was not considered a religious test.”

                  [The Myth of Separation, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, 1991]

        Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

            There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

            Article XXXII  That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.  (until 1876)

        In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.”  [p.482]

        Congress of the United States of America (January 19, 1853), as part of a Congressional investigation, records the report of Mr. Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

            The [First Amendment] clause speaks of “an establishment of religion.” What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country… endowment at the public expense, peculiar privileges to its members, or

        disadvantages or penalties upon those who should reject its doctrines or belong to other communities,– such law would be a “law respecting an establishment of religion…”

            They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit “an establishment of religion” such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people…

            They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.

            In the law, Sunday is a “dies non,”… The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits…

            Sunday, the Christian Sabbath [sic], recognized and respected by all the departments of the

        Government…

            Here is a recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but of the Christian Sabbath [sic], in exclusion of the Jewish or Mohammedan Sabbath… the recognition

        of the Christian Sabbath [sic] [by the Constitution] is complete and perfect.

            We are a Christian people… not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits

        or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay due regard to Christianity.  [pp.168-169]

        Congress of the United States of America (March 27, 1854), receives the report of

        Mr. Meacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary:

            What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualification, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist.  There never was as established religion without all these…

            At the adoption of the Constitution… every State… provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of the Government… [emphasis added]

            Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people.

            Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.  [emphasis added]

            At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the [Christian] sects to the exclusion of others.  [emphasis added]

            It [Christianity] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, —  without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.  [emphasis added]

            In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions.  That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.  There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion. [emphasis added]  [pp.169-170]

        Congress of the United States of America (May 1854), passed a resolution in the House which declared:

            The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  [emphasis added]  [p.170]

        The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (through 1862) included:

            The right of the people of this commonwealth to… invest their Legislature with power to authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or

        religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of

        piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntary.  [pp.429-430]

        Congress of the United States of America (March 3, 1863), passed this resolution in the United States Senate:

            Resolved, That devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and nations, and sincerely believing that no people, however great

        in numbers and resources, or however strong in the justness of their cause, can prosper without His favor, and at the same time deploring the national offenses which have provoked His reighteous judgment, yet encouraged in this day of trouble by the assurance of His Word, to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way, through Jesus Christ, the Senate of the United States does hereby request the President of the United States, by his proclamation, to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation.  

            On March 30, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued a historic Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day:

            Whereas, the Senate of the United States devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation:

            And whereas, it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the

        overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow yet with assured

        hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history: that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord:  [emphasis added]

            And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? [emp. add.]

            We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven.  We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity.  We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.

            But we have forgotten God. [emp. add.] We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.

            Intoxicated by unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

            It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

            Now, therefore, in compliance with the request and fully concurring in the view of the Senate,

        I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer.

            And I do hereby request all the people to abstain on that day from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes,

        in keeping the day holy to the Lord and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.  [emphasis added]

            All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the nation will be heard on high and answered with blessing no less than the pardon of our national sins and the restoration of our now divided and suffering country to its former happy condition of unity and peace.  [emphasis added]

            In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. By the President: Abraham Lincoln.  [pp.170-172]

        Congress of the United States of America (October 3, 1863), as proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln, passed an Act of Congress designating an annual National Day of Thanksgiving:

            I do, therefore, invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States… to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens… [it is] announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord… [emphasis added]  It has seemed to me fit and proper that God should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people.  [p.172]

        Congress of the United States of America (March 3, 1865), approved Salmon Portland Chase’s instruction to the U.S. mint.  As the Secretary of the Treasury under Abraham Lincoln, Chase instructed the mint to prepare a “device” to inscribe U.S. coins with

        the motto:

            In God We Trust  [p.172]

        4.      Post-War Between the States (1865 to 1982)

        Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

            There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

            Article XXXII  That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.  (until 1876)

        In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.”  [p.482]

        Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the:

            Protestant religion.  (in force until 1877)

        The Constitution stipulated:

            Article I, Section VI.  And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws.  And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law.  [p.469]

        United States Supreme Court (February 29, 1892), in the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 US 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226, Justice Josiah Brewer rendered the high court’s decision:

            Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind.  It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.

            No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.  This is historically true.  From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.

            The commission to Christopher Columbus… [recited] that “it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered…”

            The first colonial grant made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584… and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony provided that they “be not against the true Christian faith…”

            The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606… commenced the grant in these words: “… in propagating of Christian Religion to such People as yet live in Darkness…”

            Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony… in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant.  The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: “Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith… a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia…”

            The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-1639, commence with this declaration: “… And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union… there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God… to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess… of the said gospel [which] is now practiced amongst us.”

            In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: “… no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of… their religious profession and worship…”

            Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words:  

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights… appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions… And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

            … We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth… because of a general recognition of this truth [that we are a Christian nation], the question has seldom been presented to the courts…

            There is no dissonance in these declarations.  There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people.

            While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, it was decided that, Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law… not Christianity with an established church… but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.

            And in The People v. Ruggles, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said:

            “The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice… We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters [other religions].”

            And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, this Court… observed:

            “It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law…”

            If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.  Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the customs of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name of God, amen”; the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe.

            These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation… we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.

            The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality.

            Religion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind.  [pp.599-601]

        Arkansas Supreme Court (1905), was quoted by Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer in his lecture, entitled, “The United States a Christian Nation.”  The opinion they rendered in the case of Shover v. The State, 10 English, 263, included:

            This system of religion (Christianity) is recognized as constituting a part and parcel of the common law.  [p.28]

        Congress of the United States of America (March 3, 1931), adopted The Star Spangled Banner as our National Anthem (36 U.S.C. Sec. 170).  Written by Francis Scott Key, September 14, 1814, at the Battle of Fort McHenry during the War of 1812.  The fourth verse is as follows:

            O! thus be it ever when free men shall stand

            Between their loved home and the war’s desolation;

            Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n-rescued land

            Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserved us a nation!

            Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just;

            And this be our motto, “In God is our trust!”     And the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave

            O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

        Congress of the United States of America (July 20, 1956), by Joint Resolution, adopted Rep. Charles E. Bennett’s (FL) bill providing that the official national motto of the United States of America be:

            In God We Trust  [p.175]

        Congress of the United States of America (October 4, 1982), by a Joint Resolution of

        both the Senate and House of Representatives of the 97th Congress, declared 1983

        the Year of the Bible:

            Public Law 97-280.  Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people… The Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation… Deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation… Biblical teaching inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.  [p.175]

        Date Unknown

        Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania stated:

            Frame of Government,  Section 10.  And each member [of the legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governour of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked,

        and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.”  [p.504]

        _________________________________________________________________________

        _________________________________________________________________________

        America’s God and Country Encyclopedia Of Quotations, by William J. Federer, 1994

        1. you are insane. The founders were mostly deists, and they believed strongly in separation of church and state. But thanks for posting the longest comment I’ve seen so far on pols.

          1. Don’t confuse me with facts and evidence, my mind is made up.

            Just because you read on dailyKos that all the “founding fathers” were deists, it must be true.  

            So who wrote the words of the longest comment ever posted on pols, the founding mothers?  

            Can’t be, they didn’t have the vote then, must have been the founding fathers who wrote the original Articles of Confederation, and the state constitutions of the original 13 (former) colonies.

            1. made absolutely no sense. I read about that in history books. Written by historians, not by religious nutcases. Here’s the only piece of writing that matters on the issue, and I’m not saying anything else on the subject:

              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

              1. I was going to post that but you beat me to it.  shakesfist  Just kidding.

                But bear in mind that Stringer probably don’t believe in the First Amendment.  

                1. but that is quite possibly my favorite paragraph ever. I believe it was Madison, but I’m not sure. It was probably more than one person. Some of the finest words ever written.

              2. So we all agree with Sarah Palin, this is one nation under God. We just agree not to establish one demonination that is required for everyone, nor prohibit any.

                John Jay (1745-1829), was the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President George Washington.  He was a Founding Father, a member of the First and Second Continental Congresses… He was very instrumental in causing the Constitution to be ratified by writing the Federalist Papers, along with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

                On October 12, 1816, John Jay admonished:

                  Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

          1. You can find random quotes to support any political point. The interesting thing is not what all was said, but what they ended up with.

            And they very clearly wanted to keep church and state seperate. Some of the states retained an official connection for awhile, and in each case it was an historical artifact that was eventually removed.

            And keep in mind why they wanted church & state seperate, it was as much to protect the church as the state. Because when they are combined, the church is forced to make compromises required by the political process – and that injures the church.

            1. The right has to rely on a questionable method of constitutional interpretation (digging up old debates) in order to make their freedom-limiting vision of America a reality, since the actual words of the Constitution don’t serve that purpose. But the Constitution was ratified in a final form and that is what our law is based upon, not the debates that led to it.

              1. This thread and my very long post above were prompted by one thing, and one thing only.  Sarah Palins statment David referenced.

                Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

                SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance

                In context, Sarah’s statement makes sense. The founding fathers most assuredly did believe in a nation under god, and put references to god and religion in many of the original 13 state constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and in 1789, the US Constitution’s FIRST Amendment guaranteeing the free exercise thereof.

                SARAH WINS.  

                The founding fathers collectively through their legal documents and constitutions (ratified by majority) are evidence of a nation under god.

                As to David T., he is partially right about the establishment clause being to protect the churches as much as the state.

                I you want to go off on a tangent, one could make a case its the “indivisible” part of the pledge that was not in the original constitution in 1789.  Partially because it wasn’t addressed, we fought a war to decide the question.  It is now decided, and we are one nation, under god, indivisible. But I digress.

                Newsman was right, you guys need a history lesson now and again.

                The “separation of Church and state” is also not found in the constitution. It is not a constitutional phrase, rather it is a phrase from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

                What any President thinks or thought is just that, the written opinion of the President. Would you give such reverence to a letter of opinion written by any modern president?  I think not.  On the other hand, Jefferson did expand and express a concept citizens then and now support, that the state should not run a church or have the king or queen be the head of the Church of the United States, like the queen is the head of the Church of England.

                I applaud Jefferson and don’t dispute the concept, only that the wall of separation phrase was constitutionally founded, or separates citizens from the free exercise thereof.

                I think in that narrow context, even Danny might agree.

                1. Short on logic, but good try.  After your huge blockquote post, I didn’t expect more.

                  And BTW, my first thought on reading that statement was “how dumb is she to think that the Founding Fathers created the Pledge”?  It’s a contortionist argument to think in that brief statement she summarized the Dominionist belief that the FF wanted God in our government.

                  Finally, has it ever been pointed out to you that all of those State constitutions had their religious clauses removed or struck down as unconstitutional?

                  1. The fact that they were voted in by the majority that ratified them is proof of the thoughts of the “founding fathers” on the subject.  Which was the point in question.

                    Take out Marbury vs Madison, and they would still be there.

                    Not suggesting we do that, just pointing out that without it, only Christians would hold office in some states to this day.

                    SARAH WINS the aurgument.

                    2. Marbury merely asserted the power of the judiciary.  The various State governments were theoretically free to include religious test provisions until the 14th Amendment passed, though as you note in your (inaccurate) copy-paste screed above, the states removed the test laws and the establishment laws before then.

                      It’s tough learning history when you’re pumped up on revisionist propaganda.

      2. What was it you said above? Ah, yes…

        Don’t confuse me with facts and evidence, my mind is made up.

        And I thought you were just being snarky. Silly me, you were expressing your honest sentiment.

        The McCain campaign is not getting their money’s worth for your services.

    1. How else could McCain have kept Bush and Cheney off stage? Not to mention distracted the national press when they should have been vetting Sarah Palin the way his campaign, apparently, didn’t? And after Obama’s resoundingly successful speech Thursday, anything McCain did in a conventional RNC setting would come up short. McCain gets to demonstrate, not just say, that he responds to natural disasters differently than Bush did. All the while saying “country first,” and slamming the Democrats if they utter a single political word. It took a very clever God to engineer this.

      1. They won’t be able to pummel Obama 24/7 now and how can Republicans win without an incessant stream of personal attacks against their opponent?

        As for getting a free photo-op out of this situation, McCain then reinforces the counter narrative that government counts and that good government is a benefit to society.  This completely undermines the Republican philosophy that government sucks and is unneeded.

        It also makes McCain look like an opportunist like when he sent Lieberman to Georgia to score political points.  Maybe they can dress him up in a poncho and have him stand in front of some swaying Cypress trees.  It reeks of phony concern and an effort to extract maximum political gain from a devastating situation.

  9. Democrats hope and pray that our country goes in the toilet – then they will benefit.  The Dems hope the economy sours and people like you and me lose our jobs.

    The Dems hope that Gustav ruins an entire state – then they can laugh with glee that the Republican convention will not be covered.

    The Dems are in a position that they win if we all lose.  Interesting isn’t it?

    Then we as a nation will find out what additional damage they will do to our country.

    1. The economy is already sour.  The housing crisis has cause way too many foreclosures to count.  People have been losing their jobs left and right to outsourcing as well as the fact that companies can’t afford to pay all the workers they need.  Layoffs have been rampant leaving people with no place to go.  Gas prices have been high for the last 3 years/  This is not what Dems are hoping for.  This is what is happening.  

      For crying out loud, nobody is hoping Gustav causes any devastation.  I fear that it will and am constantly hoping that it will be minor if not nonexistent.  Nobody that I know wants anything to happen to any of the states potentially affected by Gustav.  It’s not like we do what Dobson does and hopes for a torrential pour of rain so much they pray for it.  Hell, I’ll hope and pray that it doesn’t come.  

    2. We already know who was praying that Obama’s speech would be rained out. And we know who called Katrine “divine retribution” on a “city of sin.”

      Your post is a good example of what psychologists call “projecting.” Remember, it was the GOP who hoped that our hostages in Iran would not be freed while Carter was president because it was beneficial to Reagan’s campaign.

      And while you worry about potential damage that hasn’t occurred, you close your eyes very real damage caused by the GOP controlled White House, judiciary and (til 2006) Congress.

      You do nothing to correct the popular stereotype that blondes are dumb.

      1. We can’t discuss issues because we’re too busy fighting off their allegations and in some cases, we need to make some allegations (mostly true ones) just to get a point across.

        I just wonder what it’s about sometimes.  

  10. that McCain might give his acceptance speech via satellite from the Gulf Coast.

    What exactly will he be doing in the Gulf Coast that will be so helpful that he can’t jet up to M/SP to deliver his acceptance speech?

    Why does this strike me as so much theater?

  11. This could be even worse for the Republicans – if Gustav comes ashore and it’s a tropical storm. No real damage.

    Granted, everyone did exactly the right thing based on how it was looking. But people will look at all the prep as unnecessary.

    And in that case, McCain down on the Texas coast in nothing more than heavey rain will look like show-boating.

  13. I just heard on channel 9 that Palin released a statement confirming that her 17 yo daughter is pregnant. The daughter plans to keep the child and will eventually marry the child’s father. The statement says the Palin’s are very proud to be grandparents.

    About that abstinence only education …

    2. The last thing a kid going through this needs is to be dragged through the press. She’s not the candidate. And I doubt her mom encouraged her to have unprotected sex so it’s not pertinant to Sarah Palin.

      1. because, more and more, it looks like Palin was an impulsive pick without any vetting. No one cares if the daughter has a baby or gets married or whatever, but you can bet the Republicans will drag her through the press for some easy Papa Don’t Preach pro-life message (they’re doing it already).

        But it’s entirely legitimate to ask whether McCain knew about this before naming Palin as his running mate and, if not, what else his hurried decision failed to take into account. And those are proper questions about a presidential candidate.

      2.    I disagree. Based on her very public statements in support of abstinence-only education, I cannot imagine that Palin sat her daughter down and told her about contraceptives.

    3. The right-winger, virgin-until-marriage family values crowd can have at it all they want – let them reconcile this with their love of Palin’s positions.

      There are so many policy and experience issues surrounding Gov. Palin, we don’t need to resort to going after family issues.

  14. The beauty queen that married her high school sweetheart at a young age is bound to have a bunch personal dips in life.

    I would bet affairs, more drug use (she used pot, her husband has a DUI) and how many jealous people can not wait to speak to the press and tell them what they know.

    The sad part of this is that McCain has taken a woman who has had a successful life and is going to destroy her with his gimmicky pick.  It has nothing to do with the candidates; it has to do with the press.

    What are they looking into?  Plenty….

    1.  Questions about her maternal choices. Clearing bringing the argument about the fact that she and her family had the choice about what to do with pregnancy, yet, she would gladly decide for me what is best for my family.

    2.  Questions about her extreme right wing beliefs and why they didn’t work her family. “Why would we believe that abstinence only taught in high school would work for our family, when is didn’t work for yours.

    3.  Her advocating for creationism being taught in our schools when there is no scientific proof and no person one step from the Oval Office would actually believe such silliness and fight for it to be taught to our kids.  

    These are the questions that will be asked and hammered home.  And Americans have the right to ask.  If Barack Obama is too liberal, is this ticket of McCain / Palin way out in Religious Right field?  

    1. Palin’s ties to the Alaskan Independence Party whose goal is to secede from the United States. There are countless number of issues that have not been touched on, which all fall onto John McCain and show his poor judgement.

      He FAILED to inform himself about his running mate. We need leadership in this country that informs themselves with as much information on the issues as they can, not another four years of more of the same shoot from the hip politics.

  15. Sarah Palin had to know the pregnancy would become obvious at some point and that, like it or not, her daughter’s situation would be scruntinized.  What does that say about her judgment as a mother, or in general?

    1. “Those who are without sin should cast the first stone.”  Even Obama says Political Children are not fair game…but even that does not stop you Liberals who are angry and hate all conservatives.

      Palin has been honest, took on the Republican Party and got lots of bad Republicans out.  She has the experience to be VP equal to and in some ways more than your Presidential Candidate Obama.

      This woman is a plus to the ticket…and the Liberals know it they just do not know what to do about it.

      McCain made a great choice and it will hurt Obama.  

      As far as God and the hurricane, RedGreen is correct, God always has a plan.  The plan is not always apparent but at all times He is in control.

      1. Far from it. It’s becoming abundantly clear she has not been honest with her own nominee let alone the public. This isn’t about Palin though, it’s about John McCain’s terrible judgement.

        You’re awfully misguided and seem to blame for Democrats for everything the republicans do wrong. You sound like a ditto-head. And yes, I listen to el Rusho to get a chuckled every once in a while thinking about all the people who follow that pathological drug addicts advice… like John McCain.

      2. that “McCain made a great choice and it will hurt Obama.”

        Well, that’s just completely false seeing how most American’s aren’t as stupid as John McCain thinks they are.

        “Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?”

        “John McCain chose Sarah Palin because he felt the time had come to nominate a woman.”

        Agree 43

        Disagree 56

        “John McCain chose Sarah Palin because he thought having a woman on the ticket would help him get elected.”

        Agree 75

        Disagree 25

        McCain made a purely political choice, not a presidential one and the American people see it for what it is; a gimmick.  

      4. those who condemn only one side for this behavior but not the other are scum too. That means you, sj, unless you want to go on the record and say that Karl Rove, the man behind the McCain-fathered-a-black-baby stunt, is a stain on your party’s recent history.

        1. You men do not understand women! You guys keep going after Palin you will turn all women including your Dem women against Obama.

          Keep saying that women with children should stay home and not work.

          Keep it up guys you will sink the Obama boat!

          1. because I neither said nor inferred any such thing. And I doubt you can find one single, solitary quote from anyone that can be taken that way.

            C’mon, tell me what you think about Rove. This is Rovian tactic all the way. (Well, almost – at least this has some basis in fact and isn’t a vicious lie.)

            1. “Maine’s Republican delegation got a surprise visit from former White House political operative Karl Rove at its convention breakfast this morning.

              During his speech, he talked up John McCain’s Republican presidential bid and criticized Democratic nominee Barack Obama for his inexperience.

              When the topic of running mates came up, he referred to U.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) as a “big, blowhard doofus.”

              I don’t have the link.  

              1. I thought it was wrong to talk politics while Gustav was still active. That’s just so sad, what Karl did.

                Good thing Biden is a cheerful guy. He responded:

                “You can call me anything you want,” he said. “I learned a long time ago you can call me anything you want.”

                http://politicalticker.blogs.c…

            1. You guys keep your dreams going because McCain/Palin are going to win.  I will love rubbing it in when it happens!

              You men have no clue…2006 was the year Dem women who took almost all races they ran in especially against men.  

              2008 Palin will put McCain over the top.

              Why?

              Women are tired of you men running things, it is OUR time to rule!  

              Palin is the only way to get a woman close to the highest office in the United States.  

              McCain/Palin Winners ’08!

              2. SJ in the know, I try to be civil to everyone on this post – as we are all just stating opinions.  However, your tactics are childish at best.

                Wanting to put a woman on the ticket just because it is a woman is not a move toward equality, it is a move backward when the woman in question is not qualified.

                I said the same about Jackson and Sharpton, they did not help the Black population, and it made it harder to overcome the stereotypes.  

                Palin is doing that for women.  Her comments are silly (Alaska as its own country, teaching creationism in school, losing a women’s right to have control over her body and her family, teaching abstinence when is it clear that most people will have sex between the ages of 15 and 19 for first time.  BTW, this has been a fact since time began.)

                Palin is not helping women.  She does not have the qualifications to stand as symbol of the role that women will play.  Just as Jackson and Sharpton do not have the qualifications to stand up as the role of Blacks in our society.

                Sj in the know, you are showing how uniformed you are.

      1. As a Dem, I can not believe the decision that McCain made.  He would put national security and an American family on the rocks for political maneuver that is sure to fail.

        Once again it is all about McCain and not about the American people, women’s rights or his own party.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

53 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!