It sounds as though the Senate campaign in North Carolina is now getting even nastier than the one here. Elizabeth Dole is running a spot with a picture of her opponent Kay Hagen and a woman's voice shouting "There is no God". Hagen, an elder and former Sunday School teacher in her Presbyterian church, is now seeking a "cease and desist" order against Dole's new attack.

Lost in all of this is the awareness that the Constitution, in Article 6, bans any religious test for office.

On what grounds would she have to cease and desist? I am not following ya here.

Even in political ads, I don't think you are allowed to dub in someone else's voice to make it sound like your opponent said something she didn't say.

I didn't take it that way, but on what grounds could the ad be pulled? I am not following you.

I listened to it and it doesn't say Kay Hagen is an athiest, it just says she took money from them and is associated with them:


Is that true? That she took money from them and attended some dinner with the head of this "Godless" outfit?

There's a copy of the letter that R.Bruce Thompson, partner at Parker Poe Adams and Bernstein, has sent to Elizabeth Dole at this URL:
http://edcone.typepad.com/wordup/files/cease_and_desist.pdf

so what if some cheesy lawyer sent her a letter? That is not grounds.

If Kay Hagan is taking money from Godless Americans PAC and being honored by their leader, don't you think voters might want to know that? I would want to know that. That might be a key factor in my vote.

Not having met the attorney in question, I have no idea whether he could be classified as "cheesy", but that letter does answer the question you asked. I assumed you were asking in good faith, so I searched for the answer and posted it in good faith. I don't intend to respond to any more of your questions.

Well no, it did not answer my question at all. Nowhere did it say that hagan has not taken any money from this PAC and is not affiliated with them. Some letter from some dime a dozen lawyer does not tell me that.

This is pertinent information about that candidate that voters might need to know, don't you think? It seems like Hagan is trying a little too hard to change the subject. Screaming that Elizabeth Dole is mean does not answer the question.

I don't really have any interest in this campaign, but actually, the letter did say she didn't take any money from this PAC or its principals. I believe the basis for the cease and desist is that the ad implies that she did.

So what's wrong with talking to an atheist group about their political concerns? Politicians talk to Christian groups all the time. Shouldn't our elected officials be responsive to all the people and listen to all groups?

The problem with Dole is that she's using this to paint her opponent as an atheist as if that were some sort of insult. Jesse Ventura is an atheist and he seems to be doing an okay job in Minnesota so what's the big deal? Not that I think Hagan is an atheist - she's probably not but that won't stop Dole from suggesting it if she thinks she'll gain political advantage from it. Dole is trying to stir up the Republican base, which unfortunately happens to be at least partly made up of religious bigots and racists. This is nothing new. Unscrupulous politicians have been pandering to people's prejudices ever since George Wallace perfected the art. It's the politics of division and hate as usual.

That was your question. The answer to it was clearly stated in the attorney's letter.

rprynne, I see it now, thanks. That would surely make the ad problematic IF TRUE. However, her lawyer wrongly said that the ad "implies" she is an athiest. It does not. Nor do we know if it is true that she didn't take money from the Godless PAC, we just have Hagan's lawyers word.

That might be a case of libel, at worst, but it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

No, it wasn't. The letter stated that the ad implied she was an athiest, it did not. And you stated this:

"Lost in all of this is the awareness that the Constitution, in Article 6, bans any religious test for office."

The ad has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution so your comment just added to the confusion. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say it is NOT TRUE that Hagan took money from the PAC?

Apparently, Hagan views it as such or she wouldn't be so upset.

That is a very bigoted remark on your part.

NMDreams, "lost" in your statement is that "religious test" applies to the "qualifications required by the State for holding an office." Since the Constitution specifically rejects any "State Religion" being the "recognized religion" of the Nation, there can't BE any "religious" requirement of any particular faith IN ORDER TO hold any office.

What you are attempting to do is to say that NO citizen can have ANY "test" of their own choosing as to who THEY think they would want to represent them.

This is nothing more than another blatant, though very poorly attempted, attempt by atheists to ban religion in any form or forum. It is simply another attempt to "muzzle" and "censor" any talk about religion.

Sorry NMD, but the Constitution specifically protects NOT ONLY from the establishment of State Religion, it also PROTECTS the rights of the citizens in the Free Exercise of their religion, and that INCLUDES the right of any citizen to have a "religous test" of any kind if that is what they want.

So let's be perfectly frank about this. The Founding Fathers were VERY clear in their many statements that a government made up of people who abandon their faith in God, in the "inalienable rights" given by God (like the LIFE of babies for example) WILL NOT SURVIVE.

We may well be living in the time when we see just how prophetic the Founding Fathers were in their assessment of the viability of the young "fetal Republic" when the "godless" do gain control of the power and establish a pervasive and intrusive NATIONAL goverment. The "unholy" triumverate of Obama/Reid/Pelosi and their hoped for "filibuster and veto proof" control of Congress and the Presidency. THEN they will set their sights on the Supreme Court and getting the "trifecta" of all 3 branches of the Federal Government. Heaven help us.

ML - I concur. But that's never stopped the liberals before.

Interesting too is the lack of outcry from Obama or from the liberals about the LA "hanging in effigy" of Sarah Palin.

A wife, mother, and Governor. Yep, THAT's worthy of hanging.

I wonder what Barack, or the liberals for that matter, would think if someone hung Barack in effigy to make a "political statement?"

****edit****

"Wayward thinking" seems to be a lot more pervasive than most of us thought." But then, consider John Murtha and his accusations of his fellow Pennsylvanians. Consider Obama's opinion that Pennsylvanians just "cling to their religion and guns."

And along comes another atheist spouting the same hate rhetoric.

Amazing if it wasn't so sad and indicative of the bias and racism/classism of a growing number of liberal-minded folks.

I think what Hagan views as an insult is the "Godless" voiceover portrayal of herself, despite the fact that she belongs to a church.

If you need a further explanation, it's not different than trying to portray Obama as a Muslim - a lie, with a very specific intent to discredit. I don't think it takes rocket science to figure out why Hagan is offended by Dole's ad.

AGG

OMG, the sky is falling... The Democratic troika... Heaven help us... Sheesh. We had 6 years of a Bush/Lott/DeLay Republican troika, giving us the most fiscally irresponsible period in American history, and most of us are still living... Relax, we'll survive, and maybe even prosper (something we did not do under the Republican trifecta)..

AGG

No, it doesn't take rocket science at all; she obviously looks down on athiests. If she didn't, there would be nothing to feel insulted about. To her that is an insulting comparison apparently. However, the ad didn't imply that SHE was Godless, it SAID that she took money from them and then went on to feature her affiliation.

Even so, her reaction reveals her sentiments about athiests and her fear about the association. She is trying her best to deny any association.

So you think that calling Obama a "muslim" is something that would discredit him?

Yup. You might just win the Lotto Millions too. Just keep buying all those tickets.

OR you might just "get rich" the "old fashioned way," by WORKING and EARNING it yourself instead of having someone take what belongs to someone else and give to you (if they like you and you can help keep them in power).

Now, let's see, just how effective have Reid and Pelosi been at reducing spending and stopping the "pork?" Hmmmm...there last attempt at hiding what they really want to do involved some 30 million dollars or so that they wanted to "sneak" into the "Rescue Package," EARMARKED for Obama's buddies at ACORN.

Ya. You must be right. PIGS WILL FLY (pork on the wing) with no checks and balances on the "triumverate."

Very astute, Mel.

Sort of makes you think about Obama and all of his denials about all of his "associations," doesn't it?

Now I wonder just what is on that tape that the LA Times has that they won't release?

20 years and never knew until NOW....riiigght.

Just acquaintences.....AY....yup.

Not a socialist bent on "changing" America.....nope, just redistribute the wealth, take from whomever they want to and give to those most likely to keep them in power.

KNOWN by the friends one keeps??? Not Obama. Not Hagan. Not Murtha. Just all one big happy family of the world bent on redistributing the wealth to all the other members of the world. At least until they kill the goose.

Sorry FH, the end isn't near. It's a good thing they will have control because that's exactly what it is going to take to clean up the colossal mess left behind by Mr 22% and his horrid administration.

Want2Stay

Care to explain why the McCain led International Republican Institute(IRI) distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.

A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank.

I mean if Khalidi is such a bad man then why whould McCain give him half a million bucks? Kind of makes a toast given at a public farewell party seem kind of innocuous doesn't it?

Really FH, we can play the guilt by associaton game all day long and in the end it won't matter one bit. McCain has just a many questionable relationships as Obama. McCain is losing this election because of the campaign he has run. He choose to use smear politics when his closet was full of it's own skeletons and nobody is buying it accept the conspiracy theorists.

Jim Hensley, Convicted Felon
G. Gordon Liddy, Convicted Felon/Advocate of Domestic Terrorism
Charles Keating, Convicted Felon
Raffaello Follieri, Convicted Felon
Ted Stevens, Convicted Felon
Rick Renzi, Under Indictment
Rick Davis, Freddie Mac Lobbyist
Charles Black, Lobbyist for Dictators
Richard Quinn, White Supremist
Todd Palin, Member of Secessionist Group

Want2Stay

FH / Wants

We just may have full Dem control of two branches of gvt. The last time was during the Carter admin. We all know what happened during those times: the unemployment rate was 10% (its now ~6%), inflation was at double digits and interest rates were above 20%.

Obama admin will not be a Clinton admin which had to work with a GOP congress. His admin could well be like that of Carter. Every social dream ever concocted will be passed. After Carter - the Dem party was burned to ashes and never fully recovered until 1992 with Clinton.

I have had a chance to listen to Obama during the primaries and to listen to recent campaign speeches. Albeit he was pandering to the left base of the Dem party during the primaries but nevertheless - it is like two different candidates.

Here's what may happen - the Blue Dog Southern Dems will become the thorn in Pelosi/Reid/Obama side if indeed Obama wins. The Blue Dogs will ultimately will have to listen to their conservative constituents. Carter ran into the same problem and at the same time ran afoul of the Kennedy Dems. Dems have never been an united party while in power - too many factions are within the party.

So I am going to vote for McCain and watch this very interesting election where we will either wind up with our first black president or first woman VP.

Somebody start making the popcorn, this looks like something right out of the movies.

Might I respectfully point out that the topic of this thread is the North Carolina Senate election, not the Presidential election? I realize that the subject of the North Carolina Senate may not be compelling enough to keep people posting, but I won't be offended if the thread dies a peaceful death from lack of interest in the actual topic. I would prefer it not be locked because people start arguing over a completely different topic.

My apologies NMD. Just defending against the usual rhetoric. I will abide your wishes for the thread to remain on topic.

ETA:
As for the ad, it really is despicable. The perfect example of desperate campaigns willing to say anything to turn around elections. Truly sad.

Want2Stay

As I see it, the fact is that Hagen attended a fundraiser at the home of an individual who is a member of the Godless PAC. Plenty of candidates attend functions and fundraisers organized by people of faiths (or lack of faith) other than their own. It doesn't mean that they have given up their own faith. It doesn't mean that they are ready to take on the faith of their fundraisers. It does mean that they may have similar view on issues that have nothing at all to do with religion.

Elizabeth Dole's ad is an obvious attempt, in a close election to pander to the fears of evangelicals. The commercial certainly insinuates that Hagen has some sort of atheist agenda based upon her attendance at a fundraiser. Of course Hagen is going to respond; the ad implies that she is godless, and she's a Sunday school teacher at her church. It's a baseless charge.

Now, just because I happen to believe that there is nothing wrong with being an atheist does not mean that this was not smear tactics. It's pretty silly to defend Dole's actions by saying "Well, if there's nothing wrong with being an atheist, why is Hagen so upset?" Please.

The point is there is what should be and there is what is.

It's exactly like the insinuation that Obama is Muslim. Is there anything wrong with being Muslim? Of course not - in my opinion - but that's just my opinion. One of the mothers of a player on my son's hockey team believes that Obama is a Muslim and won't vote for him on that basis alone. Just as an evangelical voter in the Dole/Hagen race might be inclined to vote for Dole in the mistaken belief that Hagen is "godless".

As Colin Powell said in his speech, here in America there shouldn't be anything wrong with being a Muslim (just like there shouldn't be anything wrong with being an atheist), but it's low tactics when a person's religious beliefs are brought front and center into a campaign, particularly when their beliefs are erroneously stated in a blatant attempt to garner a win.

That's what Dole's doing. Would she be doing this if it wasn't a close race? No way. She wouldn't need to resort to stooping so low. She could afford to take the high ground. I don't see any way at all to defend her actions here.

To me, it's quite disappointing to see someone of Dole's stature do this. Karl Rove rides again.

And that was my point in bringing up Article 6 of the Constitution in the OP.

(bolding mine)

Whichever of these candidates wins, she will be bound by "oath or affirmation" to support our constitution, including the portion that says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". If a candidate implies in any way that a religion is required in order for someone to be suitable for office, it does not suggest to me that that person is going to "support this Constitution".

NMDreams, that doesn't make any sense. All voters and candidates decide what constitutes suitability and that has nothing to do with the Constitution. That is their civic responsibility. The Constitution strictly prohibits GOVERNMENT from qualifying candidates based on a religious test. Not so with private citizens.

I have no evidence that Elizabeth Dole disagrees with that article and neither do you. No where has she suggested that the Constitution be changed to eliminate this ban on a religious test.

A candidate - and voters - are very much within their right to determine a candidates suitability based on any criteria they see fit.

I don't think we would be having this conversation if the ad said that Hagan was a Girl Scout leader or the chorale leader in her church, which is proof to me that this "smear" is in the eye of the beholder; beholders who DO look down on athiests. If someone accuses me of being "JEWISH," even though they might mean it as an insult, I would not insulted by that.

Even so, Hagan was not accused of being an athiest, she was accused of being affiliated with them. And we are known by the company we keep.

And certainly Dole did run the ad to undermine her, that is the job of a political campaign. That is how we get the truth - hopefully - about the candidates. We count on the opposition to dig up dirt and inform us about their opponent. There is nothing dirty about that unless it is untrue. That is a good feature of our democracy that allows to examine the bad side of every candidate since candidates are not likely to expose their own faults.

As a voter, a candidate that associated with athiests might be an issue FOR ME so this is information that might be relevant to other voters as well. As far as it being true or not, we only have the "WORD" of Hagan's own attorney that its not, which means nothing to me. He stretched the truth in his accusation that Dole "implied" Hagan was an athiest so I have very little confidence in his word.

Yeah, "obviously" . You don't need to "look down" on anyone to be unhappy with lies being told about you. You do not need to look down on the unemployed to be unhappy with someone telling everyone that you are unemployed. The problem is not atheism, Mel, it's the lie that is being spread.


No, it won't discredit him. But as with any lie, it will discredit those who pass the lie around as truth.

AGG

You must be talking about Ms. Palin and her days as governor of Alaska. Taking Fed dollars and spending them locally. Wealth redistribution to the nth degree.

AGG

Yeah, right, very astute... About as astute as saying that the Pope should not be upset at being accused of being a Muslim, a Jew, or an atheist. Very astute .

AGG

I am in agreement that lies are WRONG, but we only have the "word" of a lawyer representing a democrat. Hardly a trustworthy source.

Why would he be upset? I have been called a CANADIAN before. It didn't upset me. I simply set the record straight. I told them i was from the country of TEXAS.

Nope. "Godless Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras. Took godless money," the narrator says. "What did Kay Hagan promise in return?". The ad then plays a clip of a female voice saying, "There is no God." The clear suggestion is that it is Hagan's view. Now you can play dumb all you want, and say "oh, but it didn't say Hagan thinks there is no God", but a picture is worth a thousand words, and that is what Dole is counting on.

This whole "company we keep" line is comical. What does it mean? If you shake the hand of a black man, you are black? If you go to an event at a mosque, you are a Muslim?

I hope that this ad will help send Dole packing.

AGG

Who/what are you talking about? Are you saying that Hagan is indeed an atheist? Obama is indeed a Muslim? Pope is indeed Jewish? You lost me here...

AGG

Would it be a "smear" to expose Elizabeth Dole for attending a dinner with a Klan Grand Wizard and accept donations from him? [we do know they attended the same dinner]

I wonder if folks here would have the same objections to a commercial that exposed Doles connection to the KLAN? Would you all be screaming "SMEAR, SMEAR!!" If it were true would that be a SMEAR to expose her?

Well, as you said, lies are wrong. With a few days before an election, there is no luxury of time to "set the record straight". That's why they call them "October surprises" - no time for the other party to react. I am sure you would not be happy to be called Canadian when you are standing in line to cast you ballot and they tell you that you can't because you are not a US citizen.

AGG

Has anyone aired those commercials? I don't believe so.

And yes, if someone tried to imply that Dole was a closet Grand Wizard herself, that would be a smear, and I would speak out against it as I speak out against the "Godless" accusation.

AGG

Sorry, but that is not a "clear implication." It never said that Hagan was an athiest. Rather it spoke of her affiliations. When I watched it, I didn't wonder if she is an athiest, but wondered about her connections. So no, it is not clear and I did not take it that way.

You missed my point. I said IF IT WERE TRUE, would it be a smear?

Oh no, I see her reacting just fine. OVERREACTING, rather.

Truth is never a smear. It may be negative, but not a smear. E.g. if Obama started running ads saying "McCain is a cheater", I'd think less of Obama, not of McCain. Not because he'd be untruthful, but because it would be something that had nothing to do with the issues.

Same here. Even if Dole made it clear that she was talking about associations (which she did not do, as her implications are very clear), it'd reflect poor judgment on her. That's why I hope this earns her the "go home" ticket at the polls.

AGG

So let me ask you again, if I shake hands with a black man, am I black? Is it not important to get this "truth" out to help out those who wonder about my connections? .

AGG

And that is how it should be. Call out the smear tactic for what it is, and have it blow up in their face.

AGG

AGG, she most certainly DID focus on her associations, you quoted the words yourself. And her associations are very relevant. The "implication" is clearly in the eye of the beholder and not relevant. There is only something wrong if the association is UNTRUE. If true, a voter might find it very relevant.

Now you are being silly and just wasting my time.

Actually, you are the one being silly without apparently realizing it. Let's examine the slogan you are using, one that has been used ad nauseum by Palin and Co.

"Associations are relevant". OK, let's examine that. What is an "association"? Does the phrase "association with" have any meaning without providing additional context? No, it does not. There is a huge difference between attending a fundraiser which included a (fill in the blank - atheist, KKK Grand Wizard, tax evader) and being "associated" with them, as in being closely connected to them, following their ideology, etc.

All this "associations are relevant" nonsense is just that, nonsense, because it provides no context. Did the ad say that she went to a fundraiser where one of the 40 people was an atheist? No. It said she was "associating" with Godless people.

AGG

And that is precisely my point. The implied "association" being made by Dole is completely untrue. This "association" is as absurd as saying that anyone "associating" with Gingrich or McCain probably has weak morals because they are associating with folks who are both cheaters. "It's relevant", you'd say. Actually, it's absurd.

AGG

Other voters might disagree with you, but that is ok. You have your own criteria; others have theirs.

No, we only have Hagan's attorneys word that is untrue, which is meaningless.

You are right. Dole's ad was designed to be an information campaign, not a tool to discredit Hagan. Of course.

An image of Hagan, with a female voiceover saying "there is no God" is not intended to imply that it was Hagan saying that. Of course not. It's just a coincidence. Oops, another pig just flew by the window... .

AGG

You know what the basic problem seems to be, AGG?

The liberals LOVE to hurl these sorts of innuendos and accusations at the "right," and they scream bloody murder when they "get some of their own medicine."

Associations ARE important to voters simply because the voters will evaluate for themselves whether or not they think the "association" is just a "political" thing or if it seems to have such repeated consistency as to REVEAL the true "feelings" and "leanings" of a candidate.

Obama is not much different from many liberals, except for being "hard core far left" of even most liberals and the furthest left of all the current Senators. THAT IS an "association" that is both proven and claimed BY Obama himself.

But to the point of the apparent "outrage" over the Hagen ad, and I LIVE in North Carolina, it is no different from Barack Obama being "associated" with Planned Parenthood and THEIR desire for unrestricted abortion. That group of supporters for Hagen wants anything remotely "connected" to God OUT of everything, especially anything that concerns THEIR view of what is "public," whether it is school, government, or anything.

Hagen goes to them, accepts their money, KNOWING full well that what they STAND FOR is decidely anti-Christian and anti-God, period. For "political expediency" she is willing to take their money and their support. Why? Why would they even support her? What might they think is "in it" for them?

Hagen is an Episcopalean by choice. This is neither the time nor the place to "debate" some of those "Christian" beliefs, but it IS relevant to ask WHY a "NO GOD" group would want to through their support to someone who claims to hold "Christian" beliefs that are completely opposite of their avowed stance.

Furthermore, just how often has the liberal "pot" tried to "tar and feather" anyone who "DARED" to go to some places, such as Bob Jones University (which surprisingly DOES also support "Christian" ideals and beliefs)?

Beyond that, Hagen HAS a record, unlike most of Barack Obama's "smoke and mirrors" of virtually undefined "change." HER record is more big governement, more taxation, increased (literally doubled) the State spending and increasing the State debt. The "change" she wants is MORE big government, more taxation, more spending, more of "you don't know enough yourself to decide what to do with your money so give it to us and WE will decide what to do with it, even if you "fundamentally" disagree with "our choices," such as funding Planned Parenthood and their INDUSTRY of making money from killing babies and their support for induced labor and letting the "born" baby DIE (otherwise known as Infanticide).

North Carolina, along with several other "tobacco producing States," has been the "recipient" of this warped liberal thinking for years, and it has hurt MILLIONS of North Carolinians.

How you might ask?

Tobacco is the really BAD boogey man. Therefore we are going to make the "evil" tobacco companies PAY exhorbitant taxes to BOTH the government and to the "blessed lawyers." Nevermind that it will COST thousands of people their jobs.

And by the way, did I forget to mention that they want to keep using Tobacco as a source of funding for their major pet projects? Tobacco tax is VITAL to MANY of the liberal programs, both State and Federal.

IF tobacco IS such a huge "evil," (and doesn't the decision to smoke or not to smoke reside with the Individual's "right to choose" for themselves?), WHY doesn't the government simply declare it ILLEGAL and remove ALL tobacco, shut down the "evil" companies and do away with all the farming, processing, producing, and selling. If it is THAT harmful and bad, WHY support it JUST to get the TAX money?

Oh ya, let's not forget the "mantra" of the anti-smoking liberal crowd....the "second-hand smoke" risks to others is WHY we are banning smoking from all government buildings, are getting laws passed to ban smoking from "public access" buildings like business and bars. And we are trying our darnedest to get smoking banned from YOUR cars and homes too. All because of some unproven "fear" of second-hand smoke health problems for other people.

But, "second-hand" problems for babies as a result of choices to engage in sex? Naaaa....THAT's not a "second-hand choice" that "potentially causes harm to another human being." Forget the "harm," it KILLS the innocent person who is the "victim" of your choices, albeit "secondarily."

Hagan is what Hagan is. She is a "died in the wool" liberal who will say, and had proven she will DO, anything to get elected so she can impose MORE governmental control over the people. She is dedicated to the proposition that "all people are NOT created equal, endowed by their Creator with unalienable RIGHTS, among which are life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness." There is NO "guarantee" FOR happiness, just the right to pursue its attainment in a free society. But LIFE is a guarantee that the liberals are dedicated to taking away, and keeping away, from all the "non-voting block" of babies.

"Outraged" over the ad? Give me a break!

And since you seem to also believe in flying pigs, perhaps it would be a good time to remind folks that you can dress up a pig, put lipstick on it, and it's STILL a Pig. Very appropriate when you think of all the PORK spending the liberals always support (like the attempted giving of MILLIONS of dollars to ACORN).

Hagen has as of yesterday filed a suit against Dole:

http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/article/kay_hagen_sues_elizabeth_dole_over_campaign_ad/10464/

Kay Hagan also released a rebuttal ad to refute the filth that Dole is using.

Kay Hagan's Belief Ad

If the intent is to bring up Kay Hagan's campaign contributions that is fine, but to use a political ad to insinuate your opponent is "godless" is deplorable. Hopefully, the citizens of North Carolina will vote Elizabeth Dole right out of office for stooping so low because that is exactly what she deserves.

Want2Stay

FH, you are wasting a lot of bandwidth telling me why you don't like Hagan. Peace. I never said you need to like her, or that I like her (I am nowhere near NC).

What you seem to be missing is that the controversy is not about whether or not Hagan should win. It's about the false portrayal of her by Dole. I understand Hagan's outrage at being called "Godless" by Dole, just as would understand McCain's outrage at being called a drunkard for being married to a beer magnate. "Associations are important", right? .

AGG

Rasmussen has Hagen leading by 6 points, although other polls have her closer.

You shouldn't assume that a longer post equals a better post.

You are partisan to point of foolishness.

Why do you even bother to follow politics at all? Just wait for election time, and vote for the Republican. There was never anything Obama could've done to win your vote, regardless of where he stood on issues.

His designation as a Democrat excluded him from the possibility of getting your vote.

You hate liberals. We got it.

I think I could have picked how ALL the 10 regular protagonists on these political threads will vote 6 months ago when all this sillyness started.

No one has changed their mind - that's for sure.

Yup, you are mostly correct. I'll repeat though that I was leaning for McCain until he picked Palin two months ago. That to me more than offset my concerns regarding Obama and the Wright scandal. But since Wright was not running for VP and Palin was, that was the final straw.

AGG

So who did I vote for for juvenile court judge?

Now THAT is hysterically funny coming from you!




I don't know, Krazy, why do YOU even bother with politics?




Lordy, Lordy, you finally understand something. I disagree with Obama's stance on most issues, period. But above all, I totally am opposed to his callous disregard for the lives of babies and his unwavering SUPPORT for partial birth killing, after birth killing, killing of babies at any time up to and after birth.

He is an infanticide monster.

And as I was discussing with my Pastor this afternoon, I would not vote for McCain either if he supported abortion. As a Christian I cannot and would not vote for ANY candidate that supports abortion on demand and the killing of babies who "happened" to survive an abortion attempt. By the way, Krazy, have you WATCHED the video of a Planned Parenthood person ADMITTING they induce labor and then let the baby die? That IS infanticide, and Obama supports it and he supports Planned Parenthood, which by the way gets a TON of money from taxpayers, and *I* have no choice in their taking my money and giving it to such dispicable use.

So NO, I wouldn't vote for Obama even if he magically became a conservative on every other issue. KILLING a baby and TAKIING a life DISQUALIFIES someone from being anyone I'd want in charge anything, including the street sweeper cleaning up Chucky's Upchuck!




No, his "designation" as a baby killer supporter and being a far far left socialist excludes him from "getting my vote." NOT because he is a Democrat. There have been a few Democrats that I happened to like, but the Democrat Party didn't like them much.



Good. Just like you hate conservatives and those bad bad folks who "cling to there guns and religion."

And your point is what, that YOU are so much "better" or "enlightened?"

Right.

*******************************************

Well, when I watched the commercial, I felt it was a "clear implication." I won't be surprised if Dole loses this election. I don't live in North Carolina or know anything about Kay Hagen, but I have met Elizabeth(and Bob)Dole and that commercial was beneath her and a sad dissapointment to me.
Elizabeth Dole has countered with a new commercial that points out that Hagen's faith is not in question,just her associations/donations. It is a much better commercial....more direct, honest, more effective....I wish she had used it in the first place.
I think the smear and fear days are ending.....most voters want more civility and less insinuations. I think that is why "pallin around with terrorists" hasn't swayed too many voters away from Obama.....people were able to look up Bill Ayers and(as McCain said) realize he was "just a washed up old domestic terrorist" and they were offended by the radical muslim connection that the campaign kept trying to link Obama.

Both Fox and CBS have called North Carolina for Kay Hagan.

**********************************

I was afraid of that. I think the tone of that commercial is really drove people toward Hagen.