On the domestic front, one of the most important issues that no one ever talks about is the Supreme Court.  Right now one justice I believe is 88, and three others are in their mid 70’s.  This means that there is a likelyhood of at least one, if not four justices that will retire in the next fours years or possibly die in office.  That means that whoever the next President is, will have an impact on this country for far greater time than his years in office.  What kind of justices do we want?  Obama has stated that he will never back down from Roe V Wade etc and that abortion is a “fundamental right guaranteed in the constitution”.  Abortion is not even thought of or mentioned in our constitution.  Abortion rights are a product of a liberal court, not Congress. 

Personally, I do not want justices legislatng from the bench, and would much rather see a strict constructionist that says the constitution means exactly what it says, no more, no less. I also do not believe that Obama will appoint constructionist justices.  He would appoint more liberals and we would be stuck with them for what 25 years or more?  Remember, Supreme Court appointments are for LIFE, that is why this is so important.  This outweighs the economy, Iraq, terrorism or anything else because the next president’s appointments will affect all of these and us for years.

Agreed, drummie.

And on the policy front, just what “new ideas” and “change” does Obama advocate?  Most of his current crop of advisers are old-style liberal Democrats, some from the Clinton administration.  Not much “new” there.  Plus, which set of policies will he actually go with if he’s elected?  The ones he had for the primaries, or the ones he’s got now?

First his faux presidential seal, then his faux presidential address in Berlin, and now this cocky statement.  Newspapers are amazed at how close McCain is in the polls, and the answer lies partly in the fact that some people are probably just turned off by Obama acting and talking like the race is already in the bag.  Something tells me that, come election night, we will have another “Dewey defeats Truman” moment.

#3 Steven—I, for one, certainly hope so, recalling that Truman was a Democrat and Dewey a Republican. 

#3 - I don’t think McCain will be far behind like Truman, frankly.  And reading stuff like this only hardens my position…..

The Supreme Court and the Federal bench are indeed the big prizes.  If Obama wins, he will be in a position to fill vacancies with more leftist clones of Ginsburg and her ilk who will further erode our freedoms and security.  It would be a terrible disaster for the nation.

#4 and Truman would likely not recognize what has become of his party…  more’s the pity.

#7
Nor his country.

When Obama stiffed the wounded soldiers in Germany it really showed his charactor.  Obama could have gone covertly, honored those who were injured in service to our country and left.  He just couldn’t take the press and advisors so he stiffed the wounded.  I think people are starting to catch on!

Never minding the questionable character issues, I just think the man is patently unqualified.  If he’s qualified to be Commander-In-Chief, then so am I.  So I might as well just pencil myself down and a write-in vote.

“When Obama stiffed the wounded soldiers in Germany it really showed his charactor[sic].”

We don’t need to spread Republican party lies here.  The Pentagon told Obama not to make the trip.

Tegularius sorry but you are wrong.  http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/25/obama-cancels-visit-to-us-troops-in-germany/ Heres the link to a fox news article.  It is not a Republican talking point, it is the truth.  There have been three or versions of why Obama didn’t go. This is from the LA times (one otf those far right papers the the GOP pocket)The varying explanations for the cancellation of Barack Obama’s planned visit today to the U.S. military’s Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany are leaving campaign-watchers puzzled.

Obama had been scheduled to greet U.S. troops at the hospital just before leaving Germany this afternoon for Paris, where he met French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace.

But first, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs released a statement Thursday night saying the senator had decided “out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign.”

The campaign amended that explanation this morning. Obama wanted to thank the troops for their service, but “we learned from the Pentagon last night that the visit would be viewed instead as….

...a campaign event.,” Obama advisor Scott Gration, a retired Air Force major general, said in a statement.

On Obama’s flight from Berlin to Paris, Gibbs offered more details. Around July 15, the Pentagon approved Obama’s visit. But military officials later invoked a rule on political activity at military bases and questioned whether it would cover Obama’s visit, Gibbs said.

Obama spokesmen said they were seeking clarification on what the rule is. Gibbs also declined to speculate on why the Pentagon did not cite the rule until Wednesday.

That account, however, didn’t square with the Defense Department’s explanation. The Pentagon said it informed the Obama campaign on Monday that he and his Senate staff could visit Landstuhl, where wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan are treated, but that no press would be allowed.

“Sen. Obama is more than welcome to visit Landstuhl or any other military hospital around the world,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. “But he has to do so, just as any other senator has to do so, in his official capacity. It is not acceptable to do so as a candidate.”

“In an election year,” Morrell said, “I don’t believe that any candidate is allowed to visit a

Obama reportedly had a retired general traveling with him as a campaign aide who would have been very familiar with the military ban on political campaigns at military installations.  As a Senator he and his Senate staff could visit, but he could not go with his campaign staff and a raft of reporters and cameramen.  So he cancelled.

Katherine, I agree.  My reference to character is the fact that when Obama was first questioned about not making his scheduled visit to see wounded soldiers Obama blamed the Pentagon.  Why didn’t Obama find out the truth then give a truthful answer?

As a Senator he and his Senate staff could visit, but he could not go with his campaign staff and a raft of reporters and cameramen.

(1) There were no Senate staff on the German part of the trip. 
(2) There was never a plan or suggestion to bring any reporters or cameramen.  The plan was to visit with one aide, the aforementioned general.  The reporters did not even know the visit was planned until after it was canceled.
(3) On the Iraq portion of the trip, where there were Senate staff present, Obama visited wounded soldiers in the Green Zone without photographers or media present.
The GOP knows that if Americans vote based on the state of the country and the performance of the Bush administration, McCain will lose overwhelmingly.  So they lie about Obama to try to distract voters from the real issues.
If Obama had visited Landstuhl, you can be sure the McCain campaign would be attacking him for making the stop on a “political trip”.

The military told Obama he was more than welcome to visit. Obama cancelled not the Pentagon.  Obama’s campaign said the Pentagon cancelled (which wasn’t true), so it is not a Republican lie.(period) Obama had a two star general present and had visited military hospitals before so he should have known or found out.  As I said, even that republican rag, the LA Times, is perplexed by Obama’s obfuscations.

Give it up, Tegularius. I have been reading, although not commenting here for several years. I am a member of a former TEC congregation now in CANA, and I can tell you that most of the folks who comment here are Godly orthodox Christians, with (generally) delightful senses of humor. I usually am nodding in agreement to their commentary on theology and the Anglican wars. But they are (again generally) Republican through and through. You might as well argue with the cat as to argue anything but Republican party line.

There used to be a phrase in common usage which describes Mr.Obama’s behavior perfectly: ‘shuck and jive’. One thing positive about Mr. Obama: He puts the lie to the black activist theory that only a black person can even begin to adequately raise a black ( or partially black ) child. And yes, Tegularius, the Republican Party certainly does have a series of talking points it refers to as the “party lies” - absolutely true.

Tegularius, #15, you say that the plan was for Obama to visit with only one aide, the two-star general.  This is exactly the point.  The general is no longer in the employ of the U.S. government; he is now a campaign aide.  In that capacity, he can’t visit, and he should have known that.  And if, as you say, there were no Senate staff on this trip at all, then it was entirely a campaign event, which reinforces the military’s stance.  These rules were not dreamed up for Obama alone.

Others:  Yes, most of the commenters here are conservative in politics as well as religion, but not all on either count.  I’m not going to vote for Obama, so my views on this are clear.  But this business about trying to blame someone else for his own decision is something we’ve seen several times now from him in recent months.  If he didn’t want to annoy his two-star aide by leaving him behind, and so decided not to go, he should have just said so.

Katherine, #19, my point was only that Tegularius was not likely to get much traction arguing against a negative interpretation of any action by Obama on T19. Which is fine, and no different from any website populated largely by democratic partisans, where McCain is the villian. And there is much negative to comment on with respect to both candidates. They are politicians running for political office. It’s a messy business.

I, too, am a political conservative, but do not find either party to consistently reflect what I consider to be conservative positions…fiscal solvency, promotion of conditions favorable to economic growth, limited government involvement in the lives of citizens, strong defense, foreign policy long on realism and short on ideology, expectation of personal responsibility, a reasonable system of providing for the basic health and welfare needs of those unable to provide for themselves. One party or the other may at least give lip service to some of those principles but neither has been effective in achieving or maintaining any of them, and in fact often undermine the very goals they profess to hold so dear. I do not think a candidate I could support with reasonable enthusiasm could get through the primary process, much less be elected. On the hold-your-nose-and-pick-one scale I do not find either McCain or Obama as objectionable as their recent predecessors, Gore, Kerry and Bush II. But that’s just me.

In the end, government of any party can do only so much to end the sin and suffering in America and the world, and often makes it worse. The kingdom of God will not come through our efforts, although we must do our best while we are here.

“We don’t need to spread Republican party lies here. ” Tegularius I don’t enjoy being called a liar or purveyor of lies.  If Tegularius can support his assertation please do so.  It is clear that there is miss information from the Obama camp, but I am not calling them lies!

Let’s get back to the original thread, please.

-Elf Lady

According to ” Obama Nation”, his campaign manager, one Mr. Axelrod,  is the source for these empty hifalutin’ phrases; the same phrases used in the campaign for the new black gov. of Mass. - which he also managed, and others.