Palin Is Becoming An Embarrasement To Her Own Party

[Nimue1995 1]

You say Obama's not built a chip stack figuratively speaking? And so you really don't think that this present financial situation favors the Democrats? I'd be interested in how you come to that conclusion. And try to see it through the eyes of the ordinary voter not your own (something that seems to be tough for you).

[Balloon guy 158]

The expectations for her are so low it's highly unlikely the debate will be a train wreck for Palin. She may even give McCain a little bump after the debate.I really hope Biden doesn't blow it by patronizing Palin and annoying a lot of female voters.

Might as well hope dogs don't bark.The MO of the dems for the last 2 elections is to go up against weak republicans and blow it.

[vbnautilus 48]

Might as well hope dogs don't bark

don't you have a fancy bridge to be checkin out or something?

[Balloon guy 158]

don't you have a fancy bridge to be checkin out or something?

Tired from checkin out fancy bridges and castles all day.Taking a night off tonight to make fun of you liberals.

[copernicus 0]

You say Obama's not built a chip stack figuratively speaking? You apparently dont understand the concept of effective stacks. But poker analogies suck anyway. And so you really don't think that this present financial situation favors the Democrats? I'd be interested in how you come to that conclusion. And try to see it through the eyes of the ordinary voter not your own (something that seems to be tough for you). You are the one incapable of doing that. The current situation doesnt favor anybody. The Dems blocked efforts at reform. The GOP let them get away with it. Bush should have been screaming all over their a$$es. The vote wasn't delivered by either party, but it was the Dems job to put together a PLAN that would pass. Not a bullshit 1/2 the party vote, a PLAN. The Dems couldnt deliver 12 financial committee Dems that put the bill together and couldnt deliver California. She couldnt deliver the Sanchez sisters who don't take a piss without her approval. It was the Dems that politicized it and it is the Dems that are pointing fingers. Any competent politician on either side can make a case for blame for the other party, which means that the indies will see it as neutral.

[JustDoIt 10]

Man I go back and forth with her.First I just fell off my chair, absolutely HATED the pick...then after a bit, it seemed just brilliant. Now....??? She has been flogged mercilessly since the roll out, much of it unfair and sexist, and I think she has held up as well as could be expected, but still. I am beginning to have doubts again about her.And how ironic that he passed on Romney, with us in the midst of an economic crisis and Romney being a business man and all. Who saw any of this coming? Romney could have really helped give McCain some economic cred, he certainly would have been the stronger choice. Palin is talented, and has potential, but I agree, at least at this point,she does seem a bit overwhelmed and over her head. She was the Hillary move, the folksy mid America on the fence fly paper. It does just seems to be backfiring a bit. Thursday's debate will make or break this pick.I did read an interesting take on her this evening, an opinion that in light of all that is at stake, and as a defense against all the attacks, that she has now become a shell of her former self. That she is now being OVER managed and OVER handled and OVER prepared and that has resulted in her losing herself. The advice was to just knock it off already to all the Republicans pouring over her every move. Just stop it and go back to letting Palin be Palin.Not sure if that will be enough, but I agree that her genuineness seems more jaded lately, with the qualities of a Washington politician. That was NOT what endeared her initially to those who liked her.I agree. Time to just let her go back to being herself and see if that is good enough. If not, then so be it.Thursday ......

You are so right. Remember what happened with Reagan in 1984 when they overloaded him for a debate. They have sent in McCain's top people to work with her, we will see how that works out. They need to get on message because Obama and Democrats are sitting there very exposed. The softball's are sitting there waiting to be hit out of the park.

[Nimue1995 1]

I guess Cope we'll see who's right. I still say that you have trouble figuring out the average voter in this country. But as I believe you give them too much credit for having brains, perhaps I give them too little. But more and more you sound like those Christian friends of mine that were shell-shocked after Clinton was elected the 2nd time.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Well at least you want to hug her now instead of hate her . I have some real concerns with McCain's reasoning abilities after some of the stuff that's gone on. He's 72 and I really wonder if he's all there sometimes (and I'm NOT trying to insult you Pot or Jeep so take a chill pill). Anyway, whenever I start thinking about this election, I keep remembering a scene from a very unremarkable movie Paint Your Wagon (It's a terrible movie- Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood try to sing). In it this Mormon comes into the mining camp with his 2 wives and the miners are all up in arms because he has 2 of what they have none of. So they start trying to convince him to sell one of his wives. And the one wife speaks up and says, "Go ahead and sell me, John. It'll make things easier for you." And he replies, "Are you sure, Elizabeth? You don't know what you'll get." And she gives him this look and drawls, "Well I know what I've had." And this is kind of the thinking that I believe is going on with the American voter right now. They might not know what they'll get with Obama, but they know what they've had. And apparently according to the latest polls, they don't like it.

I'm sorry that I'm so late to this party.Nim, I feel like I've explained the tiny issue I've had with some of your posts. You're way too elitist in my opinion, and your posts leave a sour note with me. My issue has nothing to do with your post. I wasn't offended, and I know you're not trying to insult me. Carry on.

Pelosi IS an embarrassment. And if anything happens to make her President, I think I WILL move to Canada.

Then your husband is really fucked.

none of this random babble means anything foolrepublicans are losing their shit lets just enjoy it shall we?

Yeah. You really expect anyone here, anyone at all, to give you credit for a good thought when you post drivel like this?You seem like a fucking troll whenever you post stuff like this. I have always had a ton of respect for you over the years, but all of your credibility is being replaced by douchiness because you seem so insistent on posting trash. If you really have a problem with republicans, then you should participate in one of the many discussions around here. God knows you have plenty of ammo for whatever attach you'd like to make. I venture to guess that you aren't really very smart, or articulate enough to share your opinions. I bet that you're scared of appearing to be uneducated and that's why you stick with the short statements of hate, instead of spending five minutes to articulate your opinion. I thought you were a pretty standup guy, I guess I should have dismissed you as another troll long ago.

[copernicus 0]

I guess Cope we'll see who's right. I still say that you have trouble figuring out the average voter in this country. But as I believe you give them too much credit for having brains, perhaps I give them too little. But more and more you sound like those Christian friends of mine that were shell-shocked after Clinton was elected the 2nd time.

the undecideds who will vote have brains, otherwise they wouldnt be undecided.

[Nimue1995 1]

the undecideds who will vote have brains, otherwise they wouldnt be undecided.

Or more likely they just haven't been interested enough to decide up to now. Really Cope, I'd hope I'm wrong. But as I said in the other thread, I've see what the voters have done in California and that doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in the brains of the average voter. It's not that I'm trying to say that you or I are better than that but most people just don't pay that much attention to the things that we pay attention to. I'd rather have an intelligent vote against what I want than a dumb vote for it.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Outside of misspeaking and not interviewing well, what's wrong with her? How is she any worse than our current President?That was a bad interview but she's had plenty of good interviews, too.She was necessary to convince the conservatives McCain was on their side. Picking almost anybody else... Romney even, imo, would've worried the base.- TR

If the base had a choice between McCain Romney or Obama Biden, while they might not like the choice, they'd still choose McCain IMO. I don't think it was necessary to excite a base that wasn't going the other way. I just don't see them voting for Obama, especially when their pastors are illegally telling them not to vote for Obama.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

If the base had a choice between McCain Romney or Obama Biden, while they might not like the choice, they'd still choose McCain IMO. I don't think it was necessary to excite a base that wasn't going the other way. I just don't see them voting for Obama, especially when their pastors are illegally telling them not to vote for Obama.

Ummm... huh?Besides, have you ever been to a church in Detroit? Any idea for whom the Detroit Ministers are telling their Flocks to vote?

[vbnautilus 48]

If the base had a choice between McCain Romney or Obama Biden, while they might not like the choice, they'd still choose McCain IMO. I don't think it was necessary to excite a base that wasn't going the other way. I just don't see them voting for Obama, especially when their pastors are illegally telling them not to vote for Obama.

Dont you have a little tournament today to be playing?

[akoff 0]

I just don't see them voting for Obama, especially when their pastors are illegally telling them not to vote for Obama.

OMG...that is too much. You really don't understand much about this country at all.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I didn't make this up. The IRS is investigating several churches who are openly endorsing a candidate while at the same time getting tax breaks. It was a big story on CNN. They are not allowed to legally get those tax breaks if they sway their members politically. I didn't make this stuff up guys, look into it and you'll see that the IRS is taking a hard stance on it.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

If this is what you are referencing it doesn't look like a Big Story and would open a huge can of worms since many many many pastors speak politics from the Pulpit. The IRS is only looking at the complaints. To jump to a conclusion of Pastors acting illegally is a bit premature.http://www.mcall.com/topic/sns-bc-rel--pul...,0,638378.storyPolitical endorsements from the pulpit trigger complaints to IRS _ as conservative group hopedBy The Associated Press 4:57 PM EDT, September 29, 2008 WASHINGTON (AP) _ A church-state separation group filed complaints Monday with the Internal Revenue Service against six churches whose pastors either endorsed or made pointed comments about political candidates from their pulpits Sunday in defiance of federal tax law.The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based conservative legal group, orchestrated the pulpit protest to invite IRS scrutiny and a legal fight it hopes will lead to the restrictions being found unconstitutional.The group released a list Monday of 33 participating pastors — most if not all from conservative evangelical churches — and pledged to defend them.The pastors intend to send copies of their sermons to the IRS. But Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State didn't wait for that: The group filed complaints Monday with the IRS about six pastors whose sermons were detailed in media reports.Five of the six supported Republican presidential candidate John McCain. The sixth, Wiley Drake of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., said: "According to my Bible and in my opinion, there is no way in the world a Christian can vote for Barack Hussein Obama." Drake was not among the pastors Alliance Defense Fund selected for the protest and was acting independently.The five others reported to the IRS were Jody Hice of Bethlehem First Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga.; Paul Blair of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla.; Gus Booth of Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minn.; Francis Pultro of Calvary Chapel Kings Highway in Philadelphia; and Luke Emrich of New Life Church in West Bend, Wis.The IRS has said it would "take action as appropriate." The agency does not comment on specific complaints.

[akoff 0]

I didn't make this stuff up guys, look into it and you'll see that the IRS is taking a hard stance on it.

What i am refering to is the Democratic party has a LONG LONG history of recruiting votes openly in church...as a matter of fact beyong openly doing it is a way of life. I have seen Pastors on the local news with large congregations campaining for Democrats...they wrote the book on it.Do it happen both ways? sure it does Will the IRS stop it? Hell no!! Who would be by FAR the biggest losers if this would happen? Black churches in the urban and rural areas.Feel free continue the propoganda...LOL

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

In fact this is apparently a coordinated ploy by the Conservative Churches to force the IRS to abolish their restrictions against churches being able to make political endorsements.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/28/...in4483908.shtmlIn IRS Protest, Pastors Back CandidatesConservative Legal Group Fighting To Abolish Restrictions On Church Involvement In PoliticsAP) Pastor Luke Emrich prepared his sermon this week knowing his remarks could invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. But that was the whole point, so Emrich forged ahead with his message: Thou shalt vote according to the Scriptures. "I'm telling you straight up, I would choose life," Emrich told about 100 worshippers Sunday at New Life Church, a nondenominational evangelical congregation about 40 miles from Milwaukee. "I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin," he said. "But friends, it's your choice to make, it's not my choice. I won't be in the voting booth with you." All told, 33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund. The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors' sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed. Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates. Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Thirty-three were chosen, in part for "strategic criteria related to litigation" Stanley wouldn't discuss. Pastor Jody Hice of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga., said in an interview Sunday that his sermon compared Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain on abortion and gay marriage and concluded that McCain "holds more to a biblical world view." He said he urged the Southern Baptist congregation to vote for McCain. "The basic thrust was this was not a matter of endorsing, it's a First Amendment issue," Hice said. "To say the church can't deal with moral and societal issues if it enters into the political arena is just wrong, it's unconstitutional." At the independent Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., pastor Paul Blair said he told his congregation, "As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain." "It's absolutely vital to proclaim the truth and not be afraid to proclaim the truth from our pulpits," Blair said in an interview. Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there's "virtually no chance" courts will strike down the prohibition. "The government is allowed, as long as it has a reasonable basis for doing it, to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently, and that's essentially what it's done here," Tuttle said. Not all the sermons came off as planned. Bishop Robert Smith Sr. of Word of Outreach Center in Little Rock said he had to postpone until next week because of a missed flight. Smith, a delegate to this month's Republican National Convention, declined to say whom he would endorse. Promotional materials for the initiative said each pastor would prepare the sermon with "legal assistance of the ADF to ensure maximum effectiveness in challenging the IRS." Stanley said the pastors alone wrote the sermons, with the framework that they be "a biblical evaluation of the candidates for office with a specific recommendation." That could be a flat-out endorsement or opposition to one or both candidates, he said. The legal group declined to release a list of participants in advance, citing concerns about potential disruptions at services. A list and excerpts from sermons will be made public early this week, with the delay necessary for lawyers to review the material, the group said. Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly - a sometimes murky line. The IRS said in a statement it is aware of Sunday's initiative and "will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate." The agency has stepped up oversight of political activity in churches in recent years after receiving a flurry of complaints from the 2004 campaign. The IRS reported issuing written advisories against 42 churches for improper politically activity in 2004. The ban on churches intervening in candidate campaigns survived a court challenge when a U.S. appellate court upheld the revocation of tax-exempt status of a New York church that took out a newspaper ad urging Christians to vote against Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election. Opposition to Sunday's sermon initiative was widespread. A United Church of Christ minister in Ohio rallied other religious leaders to file a complaint with the IRS. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because "we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt." Three former IRS officials also asked the agency to investigate the initiative, questioning the ethics of lawyers asking ministers to break the law. Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "It is good public policy that in exchange for the valuable privilege of a tax exemption, you cannot turn your church or charity into a political action committee," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Church and State, which intends to report the participating churches to the IRS, along with any other churches acting independently.

[loogie 115]

Let's get back on subject, shall we? Palin is dumb.

[Nimue1995 1]

In fact this is apparently a coordinated ploy by the Conservative Churches to force the IRS to abolish their restrictions against churches being able to make political endorsements.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/28/...in4483908.shtmlIn IRS Protest, Pastors Back CandidatesConservative Legal Group Fighting To Abolish Restrictions On Church Involvement In PoliticsAP) Pastor Luke Emrich prepared his sermon this week knowing his remarks could invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. But that was the whole point, so Emrich forged ahead with his message: Thou shalt vote according to the Scriptures. "I'm telling you straight up, I would choose life," Emrich told about 100 worshippers Sunday at New Life Church, a nondenominational evangelical congregation about 40 miles from Milwaukee. "I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin," he said. "But friends, it's your choice to make, it's not my choice. I won't be in the voting booth with you." All told, 33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund. The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors' sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed. Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates. Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Thirty-three were chosen, in part for "strategic criteria related to litigation" Stanley wouldn't discuss. Pastor Jody Hice of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga., said in an interview Sunday that his sermon compared Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain on abortion and gay marriage and concluded that McCain "holds more to a biblical world view." He said he urged the Southern Baptist congregation to vote for McCain. "The basic thrust was this was not a matter of endorsing, it's a First Amendment issue," Hice said. "To say the church can't deal with moral and societal issues if it enters into the political arena is just wrong, it's unconstitutional." At the independent Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., pastor Paul Blair said he told his congregation, "As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain." "It's absolutely vital to proclaim the truth and not be afraid to proclaim the truth from our pulpits," Blair said in an interview. Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there's "virtually no chance" courts will strike down the prohibition. "The government is allowed, as long as it has a reasonable basis for doing it, to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently, and that's essentially what it's done here," Tuttle said. Not all the sermons came off as planned. Bishop Robert Smith Sr. of Word of Outreach Center in Little Rock said he had to postpone until next week because of a missed flight. Smith, a delegate to this month's Republican National Convention, declined to say whom he would endorse. Promotional materials for the initiative said each pastor would prepare the sermon with "legal assistance of the ADF to ensure maximum effectiveness in challenging the IRS." Stanley said the pastors alone wrote the sermons, with the framework that they be "a biblical evaluation of the candidates for office with a specific recommendation." That could be a flat-out endorsement or opposition to one or both candidates, he said. The legal group declined to release a list of participants in advance, citing concerns about potential disruptions at services. A list and excerpts from sermons will be made public early this week, with the delay necessary for lawyers to review the material, the group said. Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly - a sometimes murky line. The IRS said in a statement it is aware of Sunday's initiative and "will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate." The agency has stepped up oversight of political activity in churches in recent years after receiving a flurry of complaints from the 2004 campaign. The IRS reported issuing written advisories against 42 churches for improper politically activity in 2004. The ban on churches intervening in candidate campaigns survived a court challenge when a U.S. appellate court upheld the revocation of tax-exempt status of a New York church that took out a newspaper ad urging Christians to vote against Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election. Opposition to Sunday's sermon initiative was widespread. A United Church of Christ minister in Ohio rallied other religious leaders to file a complaint with the IRS. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because "we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt." Three former IRS officials also asked the agency to investigate the initiative, questioning the ethics of lawyers asking ministers to break the law. Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "It is good public policy that in exchange for the valuable privilege of a tax exemption, you cannot turn your church or charity into a political action committee," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Church and State, which intends to report the participating churches to the IRS, along with any other churches acting independently.

I don't know what these pastors are thinking of. This move is MUCH MORE dangerous to their churches than I think they realize. When you attack the separation of church and state, you have potential to take away the rights of everyone to worship as they see fit without interference from the government. And either way the court battle might go, it poses extreme risk to freedom of religion in this country.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I don't know what these pastors are thinking of. This move is MUCH MORE dangerous to their churches than I think they realize. When you attack the separation of church and state, you have potential to take away the rights of everyone to worship as they see fit without interference from the government. And either way the court battle might go, it poses extreme risk to freedom of religion in this country.

First of all, there is no Constitutional separation of Church and State. Secondly, they are attacking what they feel is a "State" restriction on Church activity which they feel is a "risk to freedom of religion in this country".

[hblask 1]

The problem with churches and freedom of speech could be eliminated if income taxes were eliminated.

[copernicus 0]

If the base had a choice between McCain Romney or Obama Biden, while they might not like the choice, they'd still choose McCain IMO. I don't think it was necessary to excite a base that wasn't going the other way. I just don't see them voting for Obama, especially when their pastors are illegally telling them not to vote for Obama.

It isnt that they would have ever voted Obama, but they would have stayed home. If nothing else, SP choice woke them up and they are paying attention to an election they might well have sat out.

[Nimue1995 1]

First of all, there is no Constitutional separation of Church and State. Secondly, they are attacking what they feel is a "State" restriction on Church activity which they feel is a "risk to freedom of religion in this country".

It will open a door that I think, in the end, they will be sorry they opened. This has been a rule of law for how many years? But NOW suddenly they feel the need to challenge it. Mixing religion and politics is not going to be beneficial to either. If you don't think so, then do some reading up on Pre-Elizabethian England.

[timwakefield 68]

I wouldnt put any money on Biden.

Yeah, same way I'd never bet on the Yankees even if they're playing the Royals. Would you bet on Palin though?? Cuz I'd bet on Biden and then we'd have ourselves a bet .