See Justin's explanation of the significance of this stance.
Also, read the essay by Robert George, which begins:
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.
...I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak.
Posts
29 comments:
This won't make any of us feel better.
October 15th 2004 electoral map (Bush vs. Kerry)
Today’s electoral map (McCain Vs. Obama)
Obama actually has a much larger electoral lead then Bush had at this time (October 15th/16th).
NNUTS,
I know it's easy to get really discouraged about the election coming, I'm suspectible to it to. But don't listen or read the MSM predictions.
The election has not happened yet. Gallup is showing this to be a statistical dead heat.
Bottom line, is we don't know whose going to win.
Carlo's absolutely right.
The MSM wants to drown us in a sense of inevitability, that resistance is futile and hope foolish. So we might as well not work, give, hope, try.
Since that transparently is what they want, all the more we should resist.
I'm voting for McCain regardless, but if a storm is coming I'm going seek shelter and not decieve myself into beleiving that it's not going to rain (because it would make me feel better).
The poll below has correctly named every president for the last 68 years with only two exceptions. The reason this poll has been so accurate for so long is that most kids hold the same political views as their parents.
This poll predicted a GW Bush victory in both 2000 and 2004.
Please read the complete article @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27172326/
So, I say "Don't let the media hypnotize you into accepting inevitability," and eleven minutes later, you reply, "But it's inevitable."
I don't believe it.
I also don't believe that poll. I remember pretty distinctly that that same poll, or the same premise — no matter what the article says — predicted Clinton's loss. Wrongly.
It's well over two weeks out, and Obama is the most liberal, least-qualified candidate EVER. I'm not going to assume anything except that we're going to have to pray and hope and fight and work and persuade.
For instance, I regard Joe the Plumber as an answer to prayer. I've been praying for just that category of event. So 0's out there, chatting with commoners - and why not? After all, he is The One.
And up comes one guy who thinks just like us commoners.
Only — oopsie! — the camera's running.
And — oopsie! — someone at the McCain campaign HQ is awake.
Pray, Christians. God could raise up another half-dozen "Joe"-incidents, and change absolutely everything.
And of course, God could give the American stupid all over to a strong delusion to believe a lie.
I don't want Obama either, but a tolerant postmodern culture who elect a tolerant postmodern president will not tolerate the intolerant exclusivity of biblical Christianity and will be emboldened by their win to persecute uncompromising believers. It could be a purifying effect on God's people. Let us say, "True Revival."
Fred
"I also don't believe that poll. I remember pretty distinctly that that same poll, or the same premise — no matter what the article says — predicted Clinton's loss. Wrongly."
Do have anything to prove your point and verify that it was wrong?
While I don't doubt the Ross Perot factor could throw things off back in 1992 if true, but Obama's electoral lead is far more obvious.
I just don't put much faith in political football. If you invest too much time and emotion into a particular (political) team, it can cloud your thinking.
Fred,
I agree.
Any problem that placed a civilization at the crossroads never occured overnight. Just as the consequences of bad choices can take a generation to become truly apparent, it will take at least another generation to be able to correct them.
By the way, has any one looked at Drudge's main head line.
Yes, NNUTS; I have everything Carlo and I just wrote — which you're ignoring so far.
You don't get it? You don't get that you're asking, "What has the MSM given you to disprove the MSM's mantra?"
Though they show a narrowing race and a rising McCain candidacy, I don't believe the polls.
...and was starting to write more. But why bother? So far, whatever I write, you repeat yourself.
So -- ditto what I've already said.
Dan my man, i draw you to the Drudge page because it confirms what you stated. Check it out.
Fred
Dan,
All I want is a link or something to verify your claim that that the 'Scholastic poll' has been wrong more than twice over the last 68 years (as you stated).
Thanks
Don't worry about the polls. These polls are virtually always weighted toward the Democrats, because there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. However, when you weight those polls by 2004 voter turnout, McCain is actually slightly ahead. Don't ever listen to claims of inevitability; they're nothing more than self-fulfilling prophecies.
Furthermore, keep the Bradley Effect in mind -- many people will tell pollsters they're voting for the black guy so as not to look racist. Despite the way the media will likely talk about this if/when it comes up, it's not about voters being racist, it's about voters worrying that they'll look racist. I can't think of any major election where that possibility has been stronger.
Obama is starting to fall. I had a feeling that when it came down to the wire and he had to stop talking in lofty, messianic language, he'd either have to own up to his ultraliberal stances (which wouldn't go over well), change his stances (which would crack the facade and reveal him to be just another opportunistic politician as usual), or just flat-out lie about everything. The latter is clearly the path he's taken, and, admittedly, it's the strongest line of defense, since repeating a lie often enough enters it into the canon of common knowledge, and Obama's got a lot of repeaters both in the MSM and online -- but if it can be broken (and we're getting there), it has the hardest fall. None of the integrity of option 1, none of the voter appeal of option 2.
In the end, the election will be almost entirely decided by how apathetic conservatives are these last three weeks. And the best way to cause apathy is to plant feelings of crushing inevitability. Don't listen. Just vote, and get everyone you know to vote.
But if Obama does win... well, it took four years of Carter to get Reagan. If we're still here in 2012 (I doubt Obama is competent enough to completely destroy the nation that early), maybe something good will come out of it.
"We're tired about [sic] arguin' (apparently Palin's not the only one who can drop g's) about the same old stuff!"
Translation: "Here's an idea: Instead of debating issues, how about everyone just agree with me?"
Someone who is voting for Obama didn't think that a fetus at 8 weeks could feel pain. He asked if I could send him a link to prove that s/he does feel pain. Anyone know a good link? Thanks.
NNUTS - I haven't the time to take on a research assignment for you. Feel free.
What I said was, "I also don't believe that poll. I remember pretty distinctly that that same poll, or the same premise — no matter what the article says — predicted Clinton's loss. Wrongly."
I remember it because at the time, it was counter to other polls, and it was a thin hope. But it was dead-wrong.
And it's independent of the point I've made again and again in this meta.
Yeah, most of the polls I think are wrongly skewed. APObama in their poll weighted democrats 55% to 44%. I suppose there are more registered democrats than Republicans. But by 11%? I don't know.
Update on another good reason to not pay attention to the polls. APObama just released a poll saying that Obama is ahead 44% to McCain's 42%. You think they would make that story a headline right? Nope. They're headline story is Voters souring on McCain but Obama remains steady, even though when in fact, their own Obama Poll shows the gap closing.
In other news, the Supremes vacated an order by the 6th circuit court of appeals telling the democrat Ohio secretary of state today to verify the 200,000 voter registrations irregularities that can't be matched with dmv registrations. The Supremes told the secy. of state didn't have to do her job. It's too bad the opinion doesn't say how the justices ruled. I sure would like to know.
Now that's something to be concerned about. It will make election day in Ohio a long couple of days. President Bush won Ohio by 100K or so votes in 2000 and 2004 and we have 200,000 irregularities?
I did a Dan, I meant to say their, not they're.
Is it true that the AP has started to call Washington, DC "Obamapolis"?
Dan said: The MSM wants to drown us in a sense of inevitability, that resistance is futile and hope foolish. So we might as well not work, give, hope, try
The problem with your position is that these electoral maps are not products of the MSM. They are produced by professional pollsters who know what the heck they are doing. Whether Gallup or any other organization shows the race within 2,4, or 10 points is irrelevant on the national level. We do not have a national election for president, we have 50 state elections plus DC. All that matters is whether one candidate has a lead in enough states to win the requisite 270 electoral votes. Obama's tally in state polls is somewhere between 310 and 350 electoral votes today.
Second, the MSM is not interested in depressing you. They want you to think the race is close. The executives in charge need you to believe McCain has a chance because if you don't then people stop watching CNN and FOX and the others. Then the advertisers stop buying time. It really is all about the money. CNN doesn't care who wins the election (yes, the reporters do and so does Ted Turner) as long as people watch and advertisers buy time. The best thing for the MSM would be a rerun of 2000 because it would keep people glued to their sets, the papers, the internet, and get them constantly bombarded with advertising. Maybe all that advertising would get us out there shopping and we'd put an end to the recession.
How's that for an alternative narrative?
Ironman: The problem with your position is that these electoral maps are not products of the MSM. They are produced by professional pollsters who know what the heck they are doing. Whether Gallup or any other organization shows the race within 2,4, or 10 points is irrelevant on the national level. We do not have a national election for president, we have 50 state elections plus DC. All that matters is whether one candidate has a lead in enough states to win the requisite 270 electoral votes. Obama's tally in state polls is somewhere between 310 and 350 electoral votes today.
I don't expect to change the mind of ironman, but I want to reach others who may be reading Dan's blog and getting depressed over ironman's comments.
Here is the reality. Don't get depressed, ironman is wrong. For example, who do you think pays for these polls? Let's look at the different polls: ABC News/Washington Poll. Who is their candidate? Barack Obama (they're going to endorse him this weekend).
NYT/CBS Poll. Who is their candidate? Barack Obama, NYT will be endorsing him this weekend.
NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll - who is NBC's candidate? Barack Obama.
Associated Press: who is their candidate? Barack Obama. If you look at the recent poll they did showing Obama at 44 to 42, their headline is: Voters souring over McCain, Obama remains steady. Um, 44 to 42, a tightening of the race and votes are souring over McCain??
USSR Today/Gallup: who is their candidate? Barack Obama.
Zogby/Reuters: who is their candidate? Barack Obama.
You have to pay attention who is paying for these polls and these polls are being paid by the MSM and they are all behind Barack Obama.
For example, who do you think pays for these polls?
You're joking right? You're saying that professional pollsters would distort their findings and destroy their reputations because of who pays them? How do you explain Fox News own poll showing Obama ahead by 7 points? Must be liberals rooting for Obama there, too.
You completely ignored the main point of contention. National polls are not relevant. State polls are much more important. Most state polls are not commissioned by the MSM. Many of them are done by universities who have to be extremely careful of their methodological approach. University presidents, notoriously conservative, hate it when their university researchers get it wrong.
Your assertions have no weight in reality.
Again, everyone, completely ignore what ironman is saying. (The Fox News shows likely voters with 5% not 7%, the 7% is registered voters) Even the state polls are showing there are twice as many undecided voters as there were in 2004, which makes the state polls completely irrelevant.
Like Dan, said, most of us don't have time to waste to critique every one of ironman's erroneous assertions. I say again, ignore, the polls. Pray for McCain/Palin and we'll see what happens after election day.
A thoughtful post bearing out what we're saying on the polls.
These responses are the reason I made reference to a subculture atmosphere here. It seems that either you amen whatever Mr. Phillips or you get denounced. It seems that this little subculture will believe what it wants to no matter what the evidence is. I just hope your theological acumen is a bit sharper.
Ironman,
Your ad hominens aside, we're not ignoring evidence. We've already refuted your assertion about the state to state polls and electoral map. Like I already said, the reason why the electoral maps are useless is because there are twice as many undecided this year than there were in 2004. That's why all these electoral maps even the one NNUTS tried to compare and contrast is useless. There weren't as many undecideds in 2004 than 2008 and that's why that map in 2004 predicted the election well in 2004 and why it won't be a good predictor in 2008 because there are twice as many undecided.
We're just saying we don't know how the election is going to turn out. You, Big Media and the Obama campaign are trying to tell us it's going to be a landslide.
And I personally don't appreciate the subculture comments. Do you go to the Daily Kos or the HuffingtonPost.com website and criticize their subculture? Generally speaking people go to blogs and websites that they generally like and have some things in common. It's a birds of feather flock together phenomenon. But I think a bunch of us bring some good facts here with some humor.
CR-No, I don't visit left-wing sites because I have nothing in common with them. I am a Christian of the reformed tradition and thought this blog would be a place of interesting discussion from a Christian perspective. It turned out to be some kind of weird cult with Christians in denial.
This is not a blog where honest discussion is sought or appreciated. Anytime a point is made counter to the conventional wisdom of the subculture it is dismissed and ridiculed. It is as if you are trying to convince yourselves that if you just believe it hard enough an alternate reality will really come to pass.
As my great-great grandpappy Rober t E. Lee said, "I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself."
Your attacks on Senator Obama have convinced me to cast this Virginian's vote for him.
I shall retire to my estate and attempt no more to persuade you of the truth.
I just wanted to document again the uselessness of the polls from again my reasoning of the undecided. I know that ironman has disabled his profile but just in case he is lurking and for the benefit of your other readers who are just depressed over Big Media telling them the election is over.
Don't Forget the Undecided Voters
Post a Comment