Obama beat McCain handily, 349 to 163 electoral votes.
What we should have learned, I don’t know that we did. What we should have learned is that we have principles and ideals and we should stick to them.
Ronald Reagan knew it, and we gave him victories. The 1994 Republican House knew that, and we gave them victories.
Ever since then, our leaders have been trying to reach across the isles. And we get trounced, every time.
George Bush Sr, “No New Taxes.” Until he reached across the isle, and we voted him out of office.
Republicans spent money in 2004-2006 like, well, like they were Democrats. And we voted them out of office.
What was McCain except a big reach across the isle? Part of the Gang of 14 that chose to work with Democrats instead of pushing for the judicial appointees which we will never get. Not in my lifetime. The Democrats will fill each and every one of those posts with liberal activist judges that should have been filled by conservative strict constructionists. Reaching across the isle hurt the conservative cause. Wait till Obama appoints 4 new judges in his first term to the Supreme Court, and then see if reaching across the isle helped us in any way.
McCain promised to take hatchet to the government spending and cut our earmarks, but when it came time for the $700 billion bailout of our economy, not only did he vote for it, but he also voted for an additional $150 billion in pork. That’s when he lost the election for sure.
Lesson learned. Stick to your principles.
Barrack Hussein Obama describes himself as a Christian and the New York Times is almost besides itself with glee. Notice the picture and how holy Obama appears.
I like Christians, I really do. I happen to be one. But those people that routinely exhibit their Christian faith are routinely trashed by the New York Times. George W. Bush, for instance, would never get a glowing NY Times article abut his faith. Instead, we get scare stories about upcoming theocracies and how important the separation of church and state is. So why does Obama get special treatment for his faith? If the New York Times trashes most Christians but praises Obama, then it’s likely Obama is not like the other Christians. My hackles of suspicion are raised.
I repeat my repetition: liberals are going to try to split the conservative Christian vote by portraying themselves as Christian. Conservative Christianity is bad (separation of church and state! we don’t want a theocracy!) while liberal Christianity is good (wow, Obama is practically a saint!) according to liberal media.
â€œBe strong and have courage, for I am with you wherever you go,â€ Mr. Obama said in paraphrasing Godâ€™s message to Joshua.
Now, I’m all in favor of liberals quoting scripture. In fact, I’m all in favor of liberals quoting the entire bible. I think liberals (and conservatives, for that matter) that selectively quote scripture to support their position ought to be challenged by scripture the candidate doesn’t like.
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama is reaching out to both liberal skeptics and committed Christians. In many speeches or discussions, he never mentions religion. When Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, does speak of faith, he tends to add a footnote about keeping church and state separate.
What I’ve seen in the news recently is more than just a challenge to church and state; it’s a downright hostility to any public policy that mirrors faith. The recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold partial birth abortion – a decision Obama “strongly disagrees” with – was decided 5-4 justices. All the justices that upheld the ban had Catholic upbringing; those that voted against it did not. This same New York Times that praises the most holy Barack Obama also decries the influence of Catholics in the partial-birth abortion ban. As if any belief that a Christian might hold is automatically suspect, and Christians are OK only if they actively vote against Christian principle in order to demonstrate their progressiveness.
Color me unimpressed with the New York Times hypocrisy.
Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.
The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.
It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how – not whether – to perform an abortion.
Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.
The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.