That’s what I keep thinking. She does appear to be exactly the sort for whom I’d vote. As I noted, Obama is alienating me again. I am fully prepared to overlook his gravest weakness if he will make the effort to convince me he’s not Huey Long (or Father Coughlin). Or that his foreign policy will not be the Obama Apology Tour. I may well want to go in a different direction, but Europe or anyone else can firmly plant their lips on my posterior if they think I’m ashamed of my president or my country. I appreciate rather the gravity of those decisions and the office, even if I disagree (e.g. waterboarding). I noticed also that I like McCain better when others extol him. Maybe he should do what Kerry tried: stay away, and shut up. That’s really your best option when you are a pompous windbag in a winnable election. (Thanks, Mickey) Honestly, Obama’s appeal is also his weakness: he thinks like a college freshman. He’s an idealist. Sure, he can’t be bothered with messy realities (like socialism kills people) but, particularly when we’re dropping bombs on people (shorthand for Iraq) to highly questionable and unclear ends, “give peace a chance” sounds pretty good. But let’s cut though it: Obama is lying about a “new kind of politics.” If you didn’t know it, he plays dirty. He threw out red meat (red tofu?) to the delegates, and that’s what makes the old politics what it is. Unless everyone wants a less hawkish foreign policy, these vaunted Obamicans must not be too smart; limited government is just a bad joke to Obama.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
Comments