http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080721/pl_usnw/presumed_presidential_nominees_mcc ain_and_obama_to_make_first_joint_campaign_appearance_on_august16_at_saddleback_ church

I'm sure James Dobson is heartsick (seriously) he isn't the lead evanglical in this campaign. His clout is drying up. No bowing at the alter of Dr. James Dobson. Hopefully, evangelicals can look beyond party label and support a candidate for president that can make a real difference for this country and the world at large.

>>I'm sure James Dobson is heartsick he isn't the lead evanglical in this campaign

He could'nt care less...you really don't know what he and his organization/ministry is all about.

www.family.org

I'm not sure you do either:

http://www.elroy.com/ehr/focus.html

This is why he's not gonna be one of the lead evangelicals going forward. Read the bold text down the center. That's exactly what happened to me. Dobson followers did it. Well, that and a healthy dose of Gothard's crap too.

It took a really long time to fix it. I almost didn't. The personal cost of that walk away was very high.

>>elroy.com/

nobody knows anything about this guy and he has very little on Dobson...Dobson and his organization/ministry is not perfect and anyone can slam it from their perspective but this guy is wasting his time.

Before we continue, and only if you want to continue, know that getting after Dobson is not getting after your faith. What religion somebody has isn't my concern.

It's how they act on it, and the impact of those actions that is.

Broadway, what I do know is that Dobson loves GOP politicians coming to his Colorado compound and paying homage to him and his organization. He can pontificate about his Christian heritage all he wants – he’s got a good racket going, rolling in dough all in the name of Jesus. Couldn’t be any tackier. Just another Jan and Paul Crouch or Jimmy Swaggart. He's a money grubbing, power hungry parasite who cares about making himself rich and having his sheep listen to his hate filled radio program. He's an attention whore. Anyone who gives money to this moron should have their head examined.

Hopefully, Rick Warren can convince evangelicals that James Dobson is a true heretic whose message of hate conflicts with the true message of Jesus. Dobson is just plain EVIL -- and if you don't see it, I feel sorry for you! He's like Jim Jones without the KOOL AID.

I don't know anything about this Rick Warren fellow, but if he turns out like some of the other preachers have in these candidates lives, watch them scatter later.

To be completely honest, I'm not terribly familiar with Rick Warren either. But I do know he's taken positions on matters (most notably the environment) which have infuriated James Dobson. He completely cut Dobson off at the knees, which was a long time in coming. Makes Dobson look like the small minded bigot he is. Warren also wrote a popular book, The Purpose Driven Life. I have no clue what is says, except it's scored well with readers.

Dobson operates like a marketing guy. It is the job of the marketing guy to convince the public that the company or product that he is trying to promote is the best solution available, in some cases to problems that the prospective customer didn't even realize that he had.

Marketing materials don't talk about weaknesses or limitations of the product that they are trying to promote. Instead, they hammer away on a few selling points and use a lot of buzzwords that have been calculated to grab the public's attention but that are not necessarily very meaningful.

Dobson is trying to sell Focus on the Family and its brand of Christianity. Thus, Focus on the Family is positioned as an authority on Christian doctrine and on day-to-day Christian living. The elroy.com criticism of Focus on the Family makes perfect sense, though the angle of Focus on the Family as an idol is new and very interesting.

One interesting observation that I have made of marketing people is that in their zeal, they often start to believe their own BS, and ultimately, they become vulnerable to the sales pitches of products made by other companies that are not direct competitors. This, I find highly ironic.

Dobson is a merchant of hate.

As much as I hate to generalize, I think that I will indulge in this instance: all marketing people are weasels.

Absolutely they are. Most of them will admit it too.

Everybody selling something needs a spin doctor to compete. They do that, and sleep well at night, knowing it's not really their problem if the final product does not match the power point.

This is often a given, because most product launches are done in staged fashion, with final development running right through release day, particularly if the product has a software component.

If any of them don't sleep, or are vilified, it's the product they are pitching, not the practice!

Companies are hiring bloggers to support their products online. And I'm sure they don't disclose the financial relationship with the company for whom they blog. Pretty soon, we'll see examples of product pitching right here at pdxradio.com.

>>product pitching right here at pdxradio.com

Ah welcome to America...isn't it great!

I believe that Warren and Dobson are more on the "same page" than you all believe.

> Companies are hiring bloggers to support their products online.

Years ago, I suspected that this type of stealth advertising would soon become a reality. I envisioned that this type of advertising would first appear in the political arena, with paid bloggers or paid forum participants promoting or attacking selected candidates, ballot measures, and initiatives.

Yes, the Pope, Warren and Dobson – they all believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Big surprise. With that said, nobody behaves like the needy attention whore Dr. James Dobson. The man is a whiny parasite. He delivers an unqualified message of hate. Too bad the GOP was dumb enough to hitch it fortunes to Dobson -- because he's got as much credibility as your run of the mill, overexposed television evangelical with a sex charge hanging over his head. In fact, he's more like a cult leader than anything else. It's all about James Dobson -- he just uses Jesus as a fundraising tool.

>>He delivers an unqualified message of hate

So thats your definition of "Focus on the Family"?

Focus on the Family -- above all else is a business. It generates income for Dobson. And he does it under the guises of Christianity – which is an abomination (using Christ as a cash cow that is). It's a latter day cash cow for Dobson. Plus he promotes a right wing agenda which speaks ill of those he finds morally challenged. Very Christian I might add. He's a narrow minded bigot with hate in his heart. If you're not evangelical, white or straight, then he's labeled you not worthy and outside his definition of “mainstream”. He’s a crackpot. And I feel sorry for anyone who heeds this man’s message. If Jesus is love, then Dobson is the devil.

If it's about making a quick buck in the name of Jesus, you can count on cultist James Dobson being there with bells on. Because all else, this vile turd loves money and power. Just ask his buddy Ted Haggard, another vile turd. Birds of a feather.

Well, advocating more aggressive beating of children and being clearly anti-gay and anti-other faith, is pretty damn hateful. There are a lot of flat out lies, presented as absolute truths mixed in there as well.

Oh yeah, he calls that tough love. Live a lie, or get the shit beat out of you, shunned and who knows what else. Oh yeah, ask why, maybe pose a coupla tough questions and you get, "Because God wants it that way" for an answer.

It was shit then, and it's shit now. I can tell you some stories, from my own direct, up front and personal experience, that would make your blood boil. These clowns were at the root of all of that. I saw the books, talked to the zealots, experienced the interventions, took the beatings, and spent most of my 20's sorting out the dogma from the reality.

That's a family with FOCUS!

The core problem? I just didn't want to step up and get on board hating the right kinds of people, among other things.

All I know is clowns like Dobson and Gothard (another total bastard nut bag that caused me considerable personal grief) do way more harm than good with their moral domininionism. When you boil it all down, the only real justification they have is that they want things that way, and are willing to do whatever it takes to make it a reality.

The core problem I have with these types is that they spend a lot of time and money (usually suckers money) building a base of power so that they can fight for the rights they think you should have.

They give what is otherwise a perfectly fine faith, a very, very bad name. A name so bad that a lot of people won't even be associated with it.

It's extremely tough to get around the fact that he uses the income generated by Focus on the Family, in the same way Robertson and Gothard and others do, to promote bigoted and hateful ideas and policies.

The amount of harm caused by these types is just not easy to understate.

From what I can tell, the followers of these types break down into a few coarse groups:

1. People with an axe to grind. Bigots, racists, you name it. They've got some personal character problem and rather than be honest about that, get after it and deal with themselves, they seek affirmation and justification.

And the dollars flow rather freely from these types.

2. Repressed, naive types. Really, these people are similar to group 1, but are simply ignorant of the issues. So, they are really just trying to do the right things and many appear not quite capable of really grokking right, so they buy into some authority that makes it all so much easier.

3. Casual followers. Never getting in deep enough to be a worry. They see it as a good thing, operate from a distance and generally are unaware of the harm they support.

And I'm sorry if that offends, I really am. If it stings, well... go and take a hard look at where those dollars go. It's not pretty.

4. Those wanna be types that know they can ride the coat tails, name drop, and make the same kinds of dollars for themselves, merely by adapting the core means and methods.

All four types, with type numbers 3 and 2 being fairly diverse, are otherwise generally known as the base of the current Republican party.

There is an upside though!

A growing number of young people today are not buying that crap. Perhaps that slow changing of the guard will see the influence these people have diminish over time. With that goes a lot of harm.

Edit: I'm not sure I would have made it, if it were not for Mrs KSKD. I could not ask for a better person to get me through that mess. She did, and it's good today.

I'd never heard of William Gothard. Sounds like another evangelical crackpot fraud with a phony PhD from a unaccredited university in the Bible belt. Sounds like Jimmy Swaggart’s university.

These morons take the easy way out. Rather than nurturing children, they treat them like human chattel. Beat your kids into submission. That's what I call very Christ like. Imagine Jesus beating the shit out of a kid all the while chanting "suffer the little children". Makes for a good and healthy visual. I'm sure it would fly well in evangelical circles.

Someone should call CPS if they know of a parent using these methods.

Maybe...

It's not so cut 'n dried as that. I knew of other foster parents, using those methods. They are, right now, today.

>>Focus on the Family -- above all else is a business

Good grief...all churches/religious organizations have to run with finances to pay "employees" to provide the service/ministry they do. Money is a vehical...not the purpose...if fact I think Dobson lives on his book royalities and not any Focus monies.

>>advocating more aggressive beating of children

all of you have nearly no clue of what and who Focus on the Family is and does. You do not read their own web site and listen to their daily radio program...none of you do...to get the truth of this valued ministry/service to millions of families worldwide.

When I snap my fingers you will wake up......

SNAP

It's useless, he's under to deep!

A fully conscience mind and spirit here.

"if fact I think"

(In fact, I think...)

So, in fact, you have no facts.

"All of you have nearly no clue"

Really? That's another broad smear statement that you just pulled out of your ass.

Yes, I have read their website, and my hometown newspaper carried Dobson's weekly column. I was so offended by it week after week, that I complained in a letter to the editor, and it started a firestorm, and they quit running it.

Anybody that abuses pets or animals is a bad, bad human in my eyes, regardless of what he says or does, and being proud of it is even worse.

>>I was so offended by it week after week

Just give me one "offensive" qoute/article that you read besides the animal incident that is nearly nothing...where's the beef...?

Hey M, Give it up.....JIM JAMES has him "Brainwashed".

It was quite a while ago, so I can't be specific, but everything about his positions, tone, and "holier than thou" attitude was sickening to me, week after week. Obviously, many other readers agreed with me. His column was soon gone. And I lived in a very religious town.

event link

http://www.saddlebackcivilforum.com/index.html

gonna be an interesting night...

Broadway wrote:

if fact I think Dobson lives on his book royalities and not any Focus monies.

In fact I think I'd like to sell you some beachfront property in Wyoming.

It's a racket! Prey on gullible people, make them believe they're going to heaven if they give all their money to the church and follow all the teachings of the leader. Does it sound familiar? Amway has this same business plan. Where do you think the saying "Want to get rich start a business, want to get richer, start a religion." came from.

Oh and by the way, I question the intentions of any organization with the word "family" in it. It's always religious nuts trying to take away our liberties.

>>they're going to heaven if they give all their money to the church and follow all the teachings of the leader

will someone please show me this qoute and any....any religous/christian web site and I will believe it...until then...it's not true.

You're all looking too low.

Broadway, would Jonestown type religions count?

Actually Jones's origins were communistic and discounted Christianity...he was a cultist.

And Dobson isn't?

Explain the difference.

And "Show your work".

Focusing on the Family is not communistic.

I think you have that quite right.

It's authoritarian and dominionist.

Clear difference! Nice catch.

it's on for this weekend/Saturday night on FoxNews

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/15/influential-pastor-to-host-faith-forum/

Well, that's a mega-junket for the holy rollers. FOX too. Nice score that.

You see, since it's not a real debate, FOX is appropriate. I'm sure the 23 percenters will enjoy the evening of babble and feel better having entertained it.

The rest of us will go find something else to do and wait for the real discussion to come.

(won't be on FOX --ever)

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."

>>since it's not a real debate, FOX is appropriate.

actually the event is getting some pretty decent coverage...also live on CSPAN, CNN, & MSNBC according to my preview on Dish Network...and probably more buzz through the Sunday talk shows and early week talk radio...and maybe a few sound bites for the election.

So?

So far, so good.

Obama would consult his Granny.

McCain would consult people who are good at war.

Shockers!

I liked the questions. They were designed to make each candidate say a few things out loud, on record and specifically, instead of talking about intangible generalitites that allow for wiggling later.

I get a good vibe from Warren too. No ego. Not combative. Worldly in a sense that he understands that everything is not always about America alone. That's important to me.

Obama stated a clear case for America leading by example.

McCain was given a forum to express how he feels when not being handled. And in that arena, he does well.

They both did very well ( not perfect - but a strong B+ for each ) in answering the questions asked.

Broadway wrote:

He could'nt care less...you really don't know what he and his organization/ministry is all about.

It's about creating a christian theocracy through the voting process. Has anyone ever noticed any organization with the word "family" in it is run by religious nuts? It's like I always say, the harder they thump the bible, the closer you watch your back.

And your wallet.

According to McCain, only those earning more than $5 million per year he considers "rich". What a joke. McCain is the true elitist!

..and he out and said it:

"I'm going to be a pro-life President".

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/16/john-mccain-says-no-to-choice-i-will-be -a-pro-life-president/

So there it is. Connect that to the SCOTUS and that's the core of the election right there.

" According to McCain, only those earning more than $5 million per year he considers "rich". "

Did you watch him say that? Did you watch what he said after it?

He wasn't serious.

But it wasn't funny either.

I liked the forum when I watched it this afternoon via DVR. I got an idea of who and what Rick Warren is all about because I knew little of him before hand and really still do. I also though learned more about the canidates. For the record I like both canidates. My only problem with McCain are: he has been in the past a canidate for president who let others walk all over him and at the same time smear him severly in the press. South Carolina and the Bangledishi adoptive daughter come to mind first and foremost and he currently has those in his campaign who are spreading crap that is on the level of the above mentioned smear especially when it comes to the two biggest made up crap stories on Obama:Ie one that Obama is a Muslim (yes its not something that likely originated in the McCain campaign but the certainly latched onto it and two the whole ridiculas anti-christ non sense bull shit.

But when it came to who they would rely on for advise I much rather would have someone consult with there grandmother than a militaristic warmonger!

McCain was supposed to be in the "cone of silence", however he was en route to the church. He arrived in the cone of silence 30 minutes into Obama's interview.

Warren told CNN Sunday evening, “we flat out asked him” if he heard any of the questions. The McCain campaign “confirmed that McCain did not hear or see any of the broadcast” in the motorcade or after he arrived, Ross said.

I didn't see most of the broadcast (don't have cable, missed part of the live feed on the web, haven't found a web replay yet). However, I heard one interesting answer: McCain said he wouldn't have nominated four of the current Supreme Court Justices, not surprisingly Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter. Yet McCain voted to confirm three of them in the Senate. So how does he square that? Flip-flopping again?

Andrew

latest analysis on event...

http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2008/08/17/pastor_warrens_politicized_ pulpit_a_mistake

>>creating a christian theocracy through the voting process

what is the meaning of a christian theocracy?

from Washington Post this morning...interesting...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702075. html

From 538:

The Politico has the text of a vitriolic letter in which the McCain campaign takes Andrea Mitchell and NBC to task for "giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain".

However, rather than being refuted, Mitchell's claims would appear to have been confirmed by the McCain campaign in this letter.

These are Mitchell's comments as cited in McCain's letter:


Mitchell: "The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/17/08)
There are two specific claims here -- neither of which, by the way, were Mitchell's, but instead reported as the speculations of the Obama campaign. Firstly, that "McCain may not have been in the cone of silence". Secondly, that McCain "may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama". Let's take these one at a time.

"McCain may not have been in the cone of silence".

This seems to be contradicted by the letter itself. Davis writes that "The fact is that during Senator Obama's segment at Saddleback last night, Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed."

McCain may have been in the "cone of silence" once he entered the green room (or he may not have been, as I'll describe below). However, this would not cover the first half-hour of Obama's interview, during which time McCain was in transit. What about being in a vehicle, or being surrounded by Secret Service personnel, places one within the "cone of silence"? Nothing, of course, which is why Rick Warren was taken by surprise today when he was asked why McCain had been in transit to the event rather than at the facility:

"[McCain] may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama."

McCain absolutely may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. Davis tells us that McCain was in a motor vehicle during the first portion of Obama's interview. In a motor vehicle, one may use the radio, a cellphone, a Blackberry, Bluetooth Wireless, a Slingbox, and perhaps a satellite TV feed. Whether McCain actually used any of those devices, we have no idea. But he absolutely had the ability to use them, which is all that Mitchell had reported.

Also, note Davis's oddly-specific language to describe the situation in the green room. He says that the green room lacked a "broadcast feed". However, it presumably had cellphone and Internet access. If you want to get really technical, it perhaps also could have had a CCTV feed, which might be distinguished from a "broadcast feed".

This is an exceptionally bizarre response by the McCain campaign. Note, once more, that the McCain campaign has not refuted the substance of the reports. In fact, they seem to have confirmed substantial portions of them. But they are attempting to distract from the situation by saying that neither the media nor the Obama campaign has the standing to ask the question.

I don't really understand what the McCain campaign is trying to accomplish. Putting out a letter like this would seem to increase the amount of scrutiny on the issue. There are much better times to play the "blame the media" card, i.e., when the facts are more on their side.

Do the McCain folks figure that this is a relatively minor, he-said, she-said story, and therefore using it to eat up oxygen from some other, more impactful story that might break tomorrow? Say an Obama VP choice?

Or are they acknowledging that this is a big deal and already full-on into damage control mode? I can't imagine what additional details there really are to be reported in this story. The two exceptions would be if they think Warren is going to say something damaging on Larry King tomorrow, or if there is circumstantial evidence to contradict their timeline -- say, that the hotel that McCain was staying at before the forum was very close to the Saddleback Church, and would not require a half-hour in transit? I don't mention these things because I think they're particularly likely ... but since it's very easy to maintain plausible deniability in this instance ("we had our cellphones off"), why not simply deny the story?

It will be interesting to note the rise in Captain Jack's poll numbers after the indirect butt-kicking he gave Obama at the Saddleback Forum on Saturday.

What made it " indirect "? Or even " direct " for that matter?

By indirect, I meant it wasn't a face-to-face debate. McCain was great, IMHO. Maybe there is hope for us Republicans.

From the clips I've seen, both candidates did well. If McCain seemed to do a bit better, let's recall that he was in front of a much more friendly audience than Obama was, as the audience is probably somewhat skeptical of anyone from the Democratic party.

If you keep in mind that Obama was reaching out to a group - religious conservatives - that Democrats haven't really reached out to since Jimmy Carter in 1976, you have to give him some credit. It would be like McCain appearing in front of a Planned Parenthood rally. Really, Obama had nothing to lose and everything to gain from this encounter. Looking at it that way, Obama I think did his campaign more good than McCain did his.

Andrew

Broadway: >>I'm sure James Dobson is heartsick he isn't the lead evanglical in this campaign

He could'nt care less...you really don't know what he and his organization/ministry is all about.

Seems that Dobson cares more than you think. He felt it necessarily (through Focus on the Family) to declare McCain the "winner" and Obama the "loser" in Saturday night's program:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/mccain-obama-fa.html

Are we really surprised? And to think this creep actually has a TAX-EXEMPT status! How the hell can he get away with playing such partisan politics???

Andrew

"Looking at it that way, Obama I think did his campaign more good than McCain did his."

We shall see.

" By indirect, I meant it wasn't a face-to-face debate."

Ahh.

Yes. Of course. Glad I asked.

Thanks.

Oh, you are so welcome.

>>He felt it necessarily (through Focus on the Family) to declare McCain the "winner" and Obama the "loser"

So Dobson looses his First Amendment rights to speak out about a recent political debate?

"looses?"

"Speak out"?

No, He judged it.

The first amendment is not a shield.

No where on this thread did anybody advocate for his right to speak be revoked.

He gets to do that.

However, if he is using his TAX FREE religious organization to stump for a particular candidate, he really should be paying taxes just like every other non-religious organization does.

Taxes or not, he will still retain the right to speak his mind.

This has got to be the most often confused topic, maybe tied with the confusion between hate and disapproval, that I see religious conservatives struggle with.

>>No, He judged it.

and judgement is not allowed here?

>>He felt it necessarily (through Focus on the Family) to declare McCain the "winner"

actually the article does not have one qoute from Dobson.

http://www.citizenlink.org/

"qoute"?

Some (actual) pithy comments from the LA Times article:

Since when has Citizen Link or Focus on the Family ever mustered enough intellectual integrity to report anything without unfounded bias.

Posted by: Patrick | August 18, 2008 at 08:59 PM

Obvioulsy believing that life begins at conception is good. Who are we to question ourselves, or "God" forbid the bible ?

I am sick and tired of religious ignorants, who seem to think they also know it all.

I think Obama gave the answer most of us would give. We don't exactly know when a cell becomes an live infant, so whay try to answer it?

I hope Mcain realizes that stems cell research might just be what will keep him alive for his hopeful presidency.

Posted by: Vince | August 18, 2008 at 09:02 PM

Too much media comment!! No one needs some reporter not yet dry behind the ears telling us anything! My husband and I raised and paid for the education of three now citizens...I am 88 years old...I support Obama!!!

Posted by: Margaret Walker | August 18, 2008 at 09:02 PM

Dr. Dobson,

Senator McCain voted for stem-cell research on embryos.

Posted by: Lisa W | August 18, 2008 at 09:03 PM



Warren is catching some negative spin from the forum and I am noticing more and more likelihood that evangelicals will be making personal decisions in voting this year rather than relying on religious leaders. I think that's great.

Abortion existed during the time of Jesus and throughout the entire Biblical history. Yet Jesus provides no specific guidance. On the other hand, Jesus spoke and acted extensively with regard to poverty. Obama chose to forego a lucrative career following law school in order to follow his Christian faith into the streets of Chicago to work with the poor. During that same period of his life, McCain was repeatedly cheating on his first wife as she struggled with cancer until he landed his extremely rich current wife. Not surprisingly, when asked about examples of his faith, he skips back forty years ago to his POW experience.
Beyond that, John McCain is an air force bomber who had to become comfortable bombing women and children in Vietnam. He is even more focused on war to provide solutions as Bush has been. Jesus would not take that path.

Posted by: Thoren | August 18, 2008 at 09:14 PM

So, Obama shouldn't be truthful, is that your point? He should lie to make the rightwing Christians happy?
He has different beliefs than Mc Cain, obviously. Are you intimating that he should mold his words to fit every audience?
Mc Cain's views on human rights 'at the moment of conception' definitely didn't apply to all those Vietnamese babies he burnt with phosphorus bombs and Napalm- friggin' hypocrite.

Posted by: Al B | August 18, 2008 at 09:17 PM

Warren: "Define marriage."

McCain: "A union between one man and one woman (unless I meet a much younger wealthier woman and want her instead)."

Posted by: cheaty mcgee | August 18, 2008 at 09:19 PM

I definitely think McCain did much better, but by the same token, I think Obama did well too. Before this debate I have disliked both of these candidates very much, seeing them as far worse than Bush versus Kerry (neither of whom I cared for).

I don't care for some of the questions asked, but I was absolutely IMPRESSED with the design of the questions... I think it's pretty sad that the media has done NOTHING to try to expose these candidates... if the media would VET the candidates BEFORE the election, maybe they wouldn't find so much to complain about.

I disagree with McCain on several issues, but he certainly believes what he believes. Obama did well (despite more uhm's and ah's than even Bush could ever muster), much better than I think Kerry would have done, but neither of them did as well as I think Hilary Clinton would have done.

I don't like her, but I think I would vote for her over McCain, and McCain over Obama... It's pretty obvious why Obama only wants a scant few debates, and rely on soundbites. In 12-16 years he would make a good president, but I just don't think he's ready.

Since the field was down to Obama McCain, or Clinton, I figure I will be irritated by 40-60% of their policy decisions... that being the case, I'd rather have someone that actually believes what they believe and knows why. I didn't get that feeling from Obama, but I didn't think he would be a complete disaster either.

Kudos to Mr. Warren on maybe the best questioning of political candidates I've heard.

At this point, it appears that McCain cheated and knew some of the questions ahead of time. The first answer he gave that night was a bald faced lie. And I'm not surprised, because as I watched McCain answer his questions, more than once he seemed like he knew the question before Warren finished asking it. McCain's mannerisms gave him away before he even got called out by the press.

Broadway, I was referring to your comment originally about Dobson:

He could'nt care less...you really don't know what he and his organization/ministry is all about.

And then as I pointed out, it turns out he does seem to care a lot about the political race, hence his need to declare a "winner" and a "loser" in his rival's political forum.

And again, as has already been said, why is this guy allowed a tax exemption and still be able to champion a political candidate? Let him campaign for McCain but get rid of his tax exemption.

Andrew

>>this guy allowed a tax exemption

and Dobson did not say anything in the LA Times article...it was a columist for CitizenLink.com who made the statement about a "winner" and a "loser".

>>champion a political candidate

we need to watch a few black churches in America every sunday these days....

"we need to watch a few black churches"

That sounds vaguely racist.
Are the "black churches" getting a little "uppity" for you?

" "we need to watch a few black churches"

That sounds vaguely racist.
Are the "black churches" getting a little "uppity" for you?"

Man, my radar is really off lately. I read that as " we could learn a lot by watching some black churches." Not " We need to keep an eye on them."

Which was it Broadway?

not a racist bone in my body...have you ever heard of Jeremiah Wright or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? It's a fact that many black churches all across America get a pass for political endorsments from the pulpit.

Wanna make a bet that there are MORE white churches that get a pass for political endorsements from the pulpit?

guess your thinking of Saddleback? I've never even bought a lottery ticket so I don't bet but this one's a slam dunk...been involved in the "white" evangelical church all my life in Washington and Oregon and have never heard any political candidate endorsment...never

"..it was a columist for CitizenLink.com who made the statement about a "winner" and a "loser"."

Do you seriously think any article or comment by his minions and sheeple gets published in a Dobson rag without his approval, consent or tacit agreement? If you do, (oh, never mind, it's pointless)

>>his minions and sheeple

I take that as a compliment

>>without his approval

who knows how these things work...Dobson never said anything in the LA Times piece...thats all.