Some how this was missed a few days ago.

Obama For President
Palin's rise captivates us but nation needs a steady hand

Alaska enters its 50th-anniversary year in the glow of an improbable and highly memorable event: the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate. For the first time ever, an Alaskan is making a serious bid for national office, and in doing so she brings broad attention and recognition not only to herself, but also to the state she leads.

Alaska's founders were optimistic people, but even the most farsighted might have been stretched to imagine this scenario. No matter the outcome in November, this election will mark a signal moment in the history of the 49th state. Many Alaskans are proud to see their governor, and their state, so prominent on the national stage.

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

Since his early acknowledgement that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery.

Sen. Obama warned regulators and the nation 19 months ago that the subprime lending crisis was a disaster in the making. Sen. McCain backed tighter rules for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but didn't do much to advance that legislation. Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown's root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it. It is easy to look at Sen. Obama and see a return to the smart, bipartisan economic policies of the last Democratic administration in Washington, which left the country with the momentum of growth and a budget surplus that President George Bush has squandered.

On the most important issue of the day, Sen. Obama is a clear choice.

Sen. McCain describes himself as a maverick, by which he seems to mean that he spent 25 years trying unsuccessfully to persuade his own party to follow his bipartisan, centrist lead. Sadly, maverick John McCain didn't show up for the campaign. Instead we have candidate McCain, who embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years.

It is Sen. Obama who truly promises fundamental change in Washington. You need look no further than the guilt-by-association lies and sound-bite distortions of the degenerating McCain campaign to see how readily he embraces the divisive, fear-mongering tactics of Karl Rove. And while Sen. McCain points to the fragile success of the troop surge in stabilizing conditions in Iraq, it is also plain that he was fundamentally wrong about the more crucial early decisions. Contrary to his assurances, we were not greeted as liberators; it was not a short, easy war; and Americans -- not Iraqi oil -- have had to pay for it. It was Sen. Obama who more clearly saw the danger ahead.

The unqualified endorsement of Sen. Obama by a seasoned, respected soldier and diplomat like Gen. Colin Powell, a Republican icon, should reassure all Americans that the Democratic candidate will pass muster as commander in chief.

On a matter of parochial interest, Sen. Obama opposes the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but so does Sen. McCain. We think both are wrong, and hope a President Obama can be convinced to support environmentally responsible development of that resource.

Gov. Palin has shown the country why she has been so successful in her young political career. Passionate, charismatic and indefatigable, she draws huge crowds and sows excitement in her wake. She has made it clear she's a force to be reckoned with, and you can be sure politicians and political professionals across the country have taken note. Her future, in Alaska and on the national stage, seems certain to be played out in the limelight.

Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

Want2Stay

I didn't miss it, I saw the endorsement, and agree with 99% of their thought process.

AGG

Guess who else received an unqualified endorsement from Gen. Powell? (click here to find out)

Yeah Smidgen if that is not bad enough he also endorsed Bush. The man is clearly a bad judge of character.

Now, THAT'S reassuring.

That article did not say that Powell endorsed Stevens for Senator; it said he served as a character witness for him in court.

The editorial position of the newspaper is correct on this point…the election IS about who the next PRESIDENT will be. There "conclusion" that John McCain is the wrong choice is ridiculous for anyone who believes that Socialism (big government controlling your lives and deciding who gets what and who gets to pay; "From each according to his means to each according to his needs.") That by the way, is "endorsing" "Marxist/Socialist" thinking at the worst and "Welfare" at the best.

Barack Obama has always stood for BOTH positions and unashamedly believes in "income redistribution" and paying peoples according to a Government (read this as" according to Obama and other far leftists) decision of who is "worthy" and who is "not worthy" of receiving money that they take from other Americans. GONE is the idea of helping others through charities and churches. Gone is "helping your neighbor" as a thing of personal conviction. In it's place is a Government overstepping virtually every protection AGAINST "big government" that is in the Constitution and WAS the clear intent of the Founders to PROTECT the people against the inherent evils of Big Government and the concentration of POWER (which is also what Obama has been clear about what he wants) in the hands of an oppressive minority in control of the government.




Obama SURE DOES.

Obama has never wavered on his "promises."

He has always been for Big Government.

He has always been for Unions, especially the Chicago Teachers Union and their big salaries, very short school days, and short school years, DESPITE the pleas from students for MORE school.

He has always been for "bringing home the pork" for his political supporters.

He has always been for "associating" with radicals, and even terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn.

He has always been against Israel and supportive of anyone who is against Israel.

He has always been for "saying" anything to any group just to get him their support.

He has always been a disciple of the Saul Alinsky school of "change" to undermine the Constitution through power in the hands of legislators.

He has always been for more taxation and more spending (and if think it won't "touch" you, you are dreaming). He supports the Democrat position of NOT adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax so that more and more taxpayers will have to pay higher taxes because it was never adjusted for inflation. He supports the Democrat position of NOT keep the Bush tax cuts because then MORE Americans will have to pay MORE taxes, and then HE can decide what and who to spend it on. No doubt he will also support the Democrat "idea" of taking over 401K types of retirement accounts and IN FAVOR of Social Security being the ONLY means of "retirement planning" so that the Government has complete control over YOU. And, of course, we all KNOW just how "wonderful" the Government has been at protecting and keeping solvent the Social Security system has been.

Obama has always been FOR unrestricted abortion on demand and for the funding of the killing of innocent children with YOUR money, that the government confiscates from you through their taxation.

Obama has always, as he made very clear from his time in the Illinois legislature, been FOR infanticide and opposed to any help for even a baby who SURVIVED an abortion attempt.

If you are NOT a Christian, I can "understand" why you might not think abortion is a "bad thing." But if you ARE a Christian, there is NO WAY that you could support Obama EVEN IF you agreed with his ideas of Socialism (redistribution of wealth, taking from those who 'have' and giving it, according to his criteria, to anyone he think doesn't 'have enough.'

IF someone thinks that they can "overlook" Obama's clear intentions of moving America to a Socialist country, a "member of the world" rather than the leader of the Free World, I can understand that sort of "difference of opinion" even though I am personally opposed to that sort of "redefinition" of the Constitution that MADE this a great nation.

BUT if you call yourself a Christian and you CONDONE and SUPPORT the wanton killing of MILLIONS of innocent babies on the basis of "what the woman wants to do with her own body is the woman's business and not anyone else's," then I would suggest that you seriously take a look at just what it is you DO believe about God as your Lord.

IF you support Obama's position on "women's rights" concerning the killing of babies simply because the baby is "inconvenient" to their ability to do whatever they want to do, then you really need to reexamine your OPPOSITION to adultery. IF the "criteria" is what the woman wants, and not what IS right, then "how dare you" be opposed to a woman's (or a man's for that matter) right to use their own body in Adultery?

Yes, the Alaska paper has it RIGHT. Obama IS dedicated to his positions and his philosophies. And they ARE "far, far, leftist and extremist." So much so that he WILL, as he has said and committed to doing, SIGN the "Freedom of Choice" legislation that WILL take away the State's rights concerning abortion and FORBID any limitation of any kind on the wanton slaughter of children on altar of "personal wants and desires" trumping "right and wrong."




With all due respect to the editors of the paper….baloney! McCain AND Bush both warned of the impending problem with FM and FM. McCain introduced legislation to STOP the unregulated actions of FM and FM years ago. McCain fought to stop the Democrat backed "idea" of putting people into homes that they could not afford GOING INTO their mortgages. But the DEMOCRATS, like Barney Frank, OPPOSED putting any regulatory restraints on FM and FM and KILLED the legislation McCain introduced. WHY? It is OBVIOUS. They did NOT care about the country or the economy. They wanted VOTES. They pandered to the people to secure their position in office…and as always, NOW they want you the people of this country to "bail them out" with MORE taxes to pay for their folly.



Oh yes, Obama is "A" clear choice. A choice FOR more taxation and more spending (did I mention his pledges of an ADDITIONAL Trillion Dollars in MORE spending for HIS pet projects?

He is a clear choice for those who believe in the killing of millions of innocent children because he believes that "choice" only applies AFTER a baby is created, not before.

He is a clear choice for those who support the enemies of Freedom, ESPECIALLY those who are against Israel and against the USA having a strong MILITARY and who want to turn the military into a "Peace Corps."

He is a clear choice for those who DO NOT want the USA to go get and use its own natural resources of oil and gas WHEREVER it might be.

He is a clear choice for those who think "Ethanol" isn't some big scam when the reality is Ethanol is one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the American people.

Yes, Obama IS a 'clear choice.' And that choice does define each of us individually, politically, morally, ethically, and religiously.

Hatred of America and all that has made American the land of the free and the home of the brave IS what Obama has stood for and what he still stands for. HE agrees with Alinsky. He agrees with Farrahkan. He agrees with Ayers. He agrees with Wright. He agrees with Abortion on Demand. He agrees that the Constitution itself is a "living document" that NEEDS to be changed from what it SAYS to what he wants.



Yep. That IS Obama's clear intent. But WHAT change?


And WHY won't the folks in California release that tape of Obama?

Because it SHOWS he IS consistent and is just like the little boy who "dared" to tell emperor Obama that "he has no clothes" despite the lies he tells anyone and everyone just to get elected.



Of give us all a break. You mean just like all the others who support Obama simply because this is "time of history" when we can elect a "Black Man?" You mean just like he is supported by ONLY liberals? You mean just like he is supported by his running mate, Joe Biden, who when he was running AGAINST Obama clearly said "the Presidency is no place for on-the-job training?" The same Biden who recently reiterated that Obama, as President, WILL SURELY be "tested" by an international crisis within 6 months of becoming President? You mean just like Hillary and Bill who have now "seen the light of the Messiah Obama" and have surrendered their lives and their beliefs to His Majesty the Emperor Obama who believes the STATE of Obama should decide what is right for all Americans, regardless of the Constitution?




That's right. Just like they want to put a totally green and unprepared person (Obama) in the White House AS the President, a persons who believes that America is the CAUSE of all the problems in the world.

And just as they have always done, they want to resort to the "72 year old" attempt to be divisive and class envy and hatred that are Hallmarks of the Democrats.


By the way, liberals out there, whatever happened to your opinion of Colin Powell and his Unquestioned belief of the danger of Saddam Hussein, especially before the United Nations? Whatever happened to your opinion of Colin Powell who clearly stated HIS belief that the United States should NOT be subservient to the United Nations and SHOULD act on it's own if necessary?

I guess since he has now thrown his support to the man who want Unrestricted Abortion On Demand to be the unquestioned law of the land….he's just a man of "good judgment."

I understand being passionate about things. Even if Obama is for abortion or McCain is not it doesn't really matter. The house is who decides in the end what if any change will be made. I have said this before.

Obama is not going out and having or giving abortions. I am sure he does not like it more any than the next person. Let me ask you something ForeverHers. Say for instance all the women that got pregnant and didn't want the child were made to give birth. Do you think it would be better to make her have the child and then neglect it because she didn't want it in the first place? Or give it up for adoption where they all ready have so many kids that live their whole childhood in the system feeling unwanted and unloved because their parents gave them away and no one will adopt them. Do you think either of those are a better choice?

I feel like this God is all seeing and all knowing. He knows what a person destiny is before/ if they ever do. Some people are not fit to have a spouse let a long try and raise a baby. Take for example people with Bipolar issues like B. She has given birth to four different children, gave one of them away because she said she couldn't love him. The other children she kept or in a worse position because she kept them. They are not being well taken care of not because she doesn't want them but because she is mentally unstable. I for one think she should have never had kids. Yet she did. Is bringing a child into this world just to suffer from neglect or abandonment any better than abortion?

Do you remember all the instances of people throwing the babies in the trash. How is that any better?

I agree. Obama has made his beliefs perfectly clear.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/

Well said.....Foreverhers

I thinks someone is getting a bit desperate. This rhetoric doesn't work anymore. Republicans fooled too many independents in 2000 and 2004 with this crap and they now see where it has gotten us. They are willing to risk it for something, anything...different than what we've had.

I do have a suggestion for you. I hear the John Birch Society is looking for new members. They have lots of fun activities and seminars like "Commie Hunting 101", "How to Investigate Yourself (and the follow up course..."What to do if you Find Something"), "Stalin...is he still alive and living in America" and "Red Finger Painting".


BTW your statements about Obama imply that McCain is different...but he's NOT. McCain will HAVE to raise taxes too. You know...it will be an "emergency" like the bank bailout. He didn't initially support the Bush tax cuts when they were proposed and he likely won't renew them. The Republicans are famous for breaking campaign promises ("Read my lips...no new taxes", the "We support the overturn of Roe v. Wade" even though 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices are today Republican nominated/appointed and the "we will reduce our dependence of foreign energy 2000 and 2004 promises) nor are the Republicans bound by their party platforms (think 2004 Party Plank: "We do not support government bailouts of private institutions"). The Republicans LIE and now are resorting to baseless claims of Communism to try to make a case against Obama. Considering the premise of this website, all of us here, in particular, would be krazy to trust the words of a known and unrepentent adulterer such as John McCain.

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - I don't think Obama is the be all end all. An Obama Presidency will not be nirvana. It will likely take him an entire first term just to fix what Bush and the Republicans have done to our entire governmental organization. I'd have preferred Hillary Clinton for the job. Obama, IMO, is just the better, more Christian choice of the two individual candidates we have been given.

Obama was a Political Science major so, of course, he took courses about all forms of government. It's part of the cirriculum. "The Marxist Professors" weren't necessarily communists. They were Americans that happen to teach classes on Communism and Maxist's philosophies at an American College. The one I had in Undergrad certainly wasn't but we read the Communist Manifesto and I'm none the worse for wear. Obama gives NO indication about whether he agreed with any of these philophies...rather, they were discussed. To hold this up as "proof" of any kind is to appeal to base fears. It's utter nonsense.

Here is the whole quote:

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.At night,in the dorms,we discussed neocolonialism,Franz Fanon,Eurocentrism,and patriarchy.When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints.We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure.We were alienated."

To me...this is more the typical experience of a somewhat geeky intellectual young man that happens to be half-white half-black from single parent home in a liberal course of study at a California college in the 1970's (?). He wasn't a frat boy or a cheerleader (like Bush). He was finding his way in life. At least, he was having discussions about government and policies and exploring issues relating to such instead of what John McCain was likely doing at or near the time...partying it up and bagging women with his fly boy friends. Commiting adultery. Divorcing his wife. Marrying his affair partner...etc.

Mr. Wondering

Any person that ever knew Christ could NEVER suggest Obama is a "more" Christian choice.

Continue spouting lies and rhetoric.

So, did you explain the abortion procedure to your daughter yet??? I mean if dad stands for something, at least be honest with her and tell her exactly what it is that her daddy is fighting for...you know without the legal spin or sterilization of the process.

Your 7/9 argument is a distortion and you know it...and yet you continue spouting it. More proof of your backslide.


I would sooner break bread with a person that committed adultery than one who advocates murder. You are blinded by your anger towards adulterers. It caused you to act disrespectfully at a friends wedding and now it is allowing you to justify voting for a murderer.

And the last I checked, McCain has said his adultery was a horrible decision. That doesn't sound unrepentant to me.

and now to "ignore" you go.

If 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices that are charged with "changing their philosophies" were nominated and appointed by Republican Presidents that you voted for than exactly whose hands have more blood on them????

Seriously though, I doubt very much that these Republican appointed Justices really went against their own philosophies so much so that they choose to become abortionists. Rather, I think they recognized that the LAW itself, the right to privacy, the right to liberty, HAS to be protected federally by life appointed members of the judiciary whom are thus insulated from the partisanship and mob-rule mentality that WOULD occur otherwise.

The Right to Privacy protects so much more than the right to reproductive freedom. Without it (as the true strict constructionalist would have it) each state would get to legislate according to it's own majority interests a bevy of matters that both you and I believe untouchable. Take, for instance, the Catholic promoted proposed Constituitional Amendment that you had long ago posted a link to. It not only wanted to outlaw abortion but it wanted to outlaw many common and accepted methods of birth control. Without Supreme Court protection, States would be free to ban the birth control pill and IUD's since such methods commonly act as abortifacients, or abortion causing agents and would be considered abortion by the Catholic proposal. They could ban contraceptives altoghter, even by married couples as Connecticut attempted to do and were deterred by the Supreme Court in 1964's Griswold v. Connecticut. In another state absent the "right to privacy", perhaps, Catholic Schools, or Lutheran Schools or home schooling CAN and WILL be banned by the state legislatures there depending on the whims of the majority (read Pierce v. Society of Sisters). Utah, for example, may pass laws allowing bigamy and attaching amendments calling for the arrest and detention of all homosexuals. States, unfettered by the restrictions of the first amendment of the Constitution which says "CONGRESS, shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press..." would be free to regulate speech and/or the press...if it so chose to.

You may think that's ridiculous, but these are REAL examples of what CAN occur. My point is...anyone that denies there is a constitutionally protected right to privacy would abdicate judicial responsibility in protecting themselves and all individuals from the threat of STUPID laws enacted by STUPID politicians in any given state at any given time elected by any given majority (Christians beware as we will NOT remain the majority for much longer in vast areas of this country and the removal of the right to privacy can pave the way to Christian persecution as described in the end times).

Finally, how do I allign this with my Christian beliefs? Well, I'd prefer to see LESS abortions (actually NONE but that's an impossible standard for either position). To solve this, I'd like to see the issue put to rest. If it became illegal, besides the fear of state legislatures...I envision vast resources being consumed to prosecute and jail offenders while the pro-choice people will continue to press for it's legality once again. Wealthy Americans will just take their daughters abroad leaving only the poorest American women enduring the chains of the government on their uterus's. I think keeping it legal and somehow ending the debate (with either a solid majority Supreme Court consensus or a Right to Reproductive Freedom Act or Amemdment) such that both sides of the issue stop fighting and can come together and resolve to make such "CHOICE" an expanded choice where women choose to forego abortions and endure their pregnancies would be for the best. Less unwanted pregnancies via more sex education...including abstinance training in both our public and private schools. Every 16 year old and over should KNOW what a condom is, how to use it and where to get them readily. I'd like to see women have real choices such as pregnancy homes for young women where they can get prenatal care, education (about parenting and sex education to avoid reccurence), adoption alternatives, etc. Parents of young adults also need eduction by our churches, schools and community organizations on how best to address these issues with their children. Of course, poverty needs to be addressed and MARRIAGE needs to be promoted in this country as well (less abortion occurs in marriage). Wouldn't it be great to see the vast resources spent fighting about this issue redirected at minimizing this issue. The MONEY is right there. To me...the legality of it is settled and calling me a butcher is the same as calling every American that lives under the Constitution a butcher. If you are not a fan of the Constitution...Delta is ready when you are. It's the document that provides the freedom to choose...not me (nor judges suddenly switching philosophies), so let's find ways TOGETHER to get women to choose responsibl before and after sex. In the end, it is my ardent belief that MORE of God's children will survive and thrive addressing the problem this way (which is the point) AND my/everyone's valued individual rights and privacy remain protected.

Aside...Republicans absent this false agenda, which they are only paying lip-service to anyway to capture the single-issue voters, would HAVE to come up with real agenda's and real leaders whose qualifications expand beyond the simple "I'm pro-life" litmus test to sway voters their way which will likely result in a better government eventually. I know I'd likely switch back to the Republicans.

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - "rude at a friends wedding??" No idea what you are talking about.

ok, we're done!