During an interview with McCain campaign manager Rick Davis on the September 5 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe in which Davis touted Sen. John McCain as differing from his party in his support for immigration reform, at no point did NBC News political director Chuck Todd note that McCain reversed himself on a key component of immigration reform, aligning himself more closely with the base of his party.

Todd asked Davis if he is "worried the numbers are showing that Senator McCain is performing worse among Hispanics than President Bush," and added moments later: "He is not getting votes that his record deserves." Davis replied, in part: "Look what we did as a party. For the last two years, we've told Hispanic voters that we don't want immigration from the southern border. ... There's been a nativist discussion in this country that has hurt our party's ability to attract Hispanic voters." Todd then asked, "Anything to change it?" Davis replied: "The only one in our party who can do that and set it right is John McCain." However, at no point during the discussion did Todd mention that, under pressure from the Republican base, McCain reversed himself on a key component of immigration reform, and now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective. A November 4, 2007, Associated Press article reporting on McCain's reversal noted that McCain now "emphasizes securing the borders first," and also quoted McCain stating: "I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift. ... I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders." McCain also stated during a January 30 Republican presidential primary debate that he would not support the immigration reform bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) if it came to a vote on the Senate floor.

In a March 3 New York Times article, Elisabeth Bumiller wrote, "Senator John McCain likes to present himself as the candidate of the 'Straight Talk Express' who does not pander to voters or change his positions with the political breeze. But the fine print of his record in the Senate indicates that he has been a lot less consistent on some of his signature issues than he has presented himself to be so far in his presidential campaign." On immigration, Bumiller wrote:

Mr. McCain has also moved from his original position on immigration. In 2005, he joined forces with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, to co-sponsor an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws. Although the legislation included toughening border security, its center was a provision that would have provided a pathway to citizenship for many of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Conservatives immediately branded the bill as amnesty and fired steadily at Mr. McCain. After seeing his campaign and his fund-raising efforts derail last summer -- which his advisers attributed in large part to his position on immigration -- Mr. McCain now says that he got the message from voters. These days he speaks almost exclusively about border security, although he does say that it is not possible to deport 12 million illegal immigrants and that he would never deport the mother of a soldier serving in Iraq.

Additionally, in a June 20 Politico piece, journalist Gebe Martinez reported on McCain's reversal on immigration:

McCain, the Arizona senator, dismayed Latinos last year when he stepped back from his immigration bill that would have tightened the borders and legalized undocumented immigrants. As boos and hisses from angry Republican conservatives grew louder at campaign events, he switched course and vowed to "first" secure the borders. Were his failed bill to come up again, he would not vote for it, he said.

[...]

Trying to regain Latino support, McCain has chastised Republicans who stoke the fires of the immigration at election time. And at a private meeting with Chicago-area Latinos last week, he promised to push for a comprehensive immigration bill.

"It sounds like he's trying to have it both ways, and it's not convincing anyone," said Frank Sharry, who also was involved in immigration bill negotiations when he headed the National Immigration Forum.

This is not the McCain Hispanics thought they knew. Even after the 2001 terrorist attacks placed an emphasis on national security, McCain's speeches to Latino audiences and on the Senate floor prioritized the compassionate side of the immigration argument.

He understood that border security "first" means "deportation only" in the eyes of immigrant activists, and he championed a broader approach.

As the Senate mulled immigration in 2006, McCain often stood in the Capitol's corridors, pounding his fist in the air, arguing that border enforcement would not work without simultaneously penalizing employers who hire workers illegally, creating a temporary worker program and finding a way to bring 12 million illegal immigrants "out of the shadows" of society.

"It won't work! It won't work!" he protested of suggestions to do enforcement first. The stool cannot stand on one leg.

As Media Matters noted, on the February 14 edition of Morning Joe, Todd asserted that McCain is a "moderate," even though McCain has reversed his position on immigration and other issues to align himself with the base of the Republican Party.

From the September 5 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

TODD: Rick, last night -- last night in Senator McCain's speech, I saw him use the word "Latina." He was talking about a Latina woman, trying to -- it was the first time all week that I had seen your party even remotely talk about the Hispanics or even reach out to the Hispanic vote. Are you worried the numbers are showing that Senator McCain is performing worse among Hispanics than President Bush? And maybe this is a party problem.

DAVIS: Well, sure --

TODD: But how do you carry Colorado and New Mexico and Nevada with underperforming President Bush on Hispanics?

DAVIS: Oh, look, we don't want to underperform anybody on Hispanics. John McCain is -- for his entire career --

TODD: Well, that's right. There's no question his record --

DAVIS: -- has gotten more Hispanic votes than any other candidate in the country.

TODD: He's not getting votes that his record deserves.

DAVIS: But look what we did. Look what we --

TODD: In this case --

DAVIS: -- did as a party. For the last two years, we've told Hispanic voters that we don't want immigration from the southern border, that we don't -- and, you know what? The message, you can't bifurcate it. It's not just legal immigration and illegal immigration.

TODD: They're not hearing it, and that's been the problem. They're not hearing that.

DAVIS: There's been a nativist discussion in this country that has hurt our party's ability to attract Hispanic voters.

TODD: Anything to change it?

DAVIS: The only one in our party who can do that and set it right is John McCain.

TODD: Why didn't he talk about it more last night or through this convention?

DAVIS: Well, look, I mean, we had some great people at the convention talking about it -- Tommy Espinoza, who is Jimmy McCain's godfather, someone who John McCain has done all kinds of good works with. You know, a former CEO of La Raza was a speaker at our convention. He's not what you call a rock-ribbed Republican.

You look at our speakers at our convention and we had a lot of people who are not Republicans come and talk to our convention. And I think the message that our convention gave is the kind of message that the McCain administration is going to give, and that is party labels don't give you access. What you -- gives you access is whether you're going to put your country first, set aside your own partisan interests, and do good for the country.

In their coverage of Sen. John McCain's September 4 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, several media outlets, including ABC's Good Morning America, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and Reuters, uncritically reported McCain's claim in the speech that Sen. Barack Obama "will raise" taxes. None of these outlets pointed out that Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families and raising taxes only on households earning more than $250,000 per year. Nor did they note that McCain's own chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes."

In its analysis of Obama's and Sen. John McCain's tax proposals, the Tax Policy Center concluded that "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households."

In contrast with those outlets uncritically reporting the claim, Bloomberg reported that "[t]he Obama campaign rebutted the speech, saying the Democrat has pledged to cut taxes for middle-class families. Obama has said he would raise levies on the highest-income brackets by letting President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire."

From the September 5 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

DIANE SAWYER (co-anchor): As for Barack Obama, there were gracious words.

McCAIN [video clip]: You have my respect and my admiration. Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us.

SAWYER: But then, differences.

McCAIN [video clip]: I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can -- my opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services -- my opponent will close them. I will cut government spending -- he will increase it. I have that record and the scars to prove it. Senator Obama does not.

SAWYER: As he ended, the former POW, memories of 35 years ago.

[...]

CHRIS CUOMO (co-anchor): Thank you, Diane. John McCain is campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan today after vowing to bring change to Washington. McCain used his acceptance speech to compliment Barack Obama, then he made it clear they have stark differences.

McCAIN [video clip]: I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can -- my opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services -- my opponent will close them. I will cut government spending -- he will increase it. I have that record and the scars to prove it. Senator Obama does not.

CUOMO: McCain recalled his experience as a POW and he urged Americans to fight for what's right.

Word is that Alaska governor, Republican vice presidential nominee and airborne wolf huntress Sarah Palin gave one of her children the middle name "Van" so that his name would rhyme with Van Halen. After all, one of its best-selling albums, 1984, did come out the same year she competed in the Miss Alaska pageant.

John McCain (who may or may not have been aware of her predilection for the guitar legend) played the band's pop anthem "Right Now" after announcing Palin as his running mate. For the record, Van Halen didn't given the Republican ticket permission to use the song -- and they say they wouldn't even if asked. We see a pattern here ... McCain faces a lawsuit from Jackson Browne for infringing copyright by using Browne's song "Running on Empty" without permission.

Anyway, on to the Democrats. We know Barack Obama running mate Joe Biden is a staunch supporter of the RIAA and other copyright interests through his sponsorship of the Perform Act, which tried to prevent people from recording satellite and internet radio, and the fact that he was one of only four senators invited to the RIAA's champagne party in celebration of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which makes it a felony to rip a DVD.

Biden was also a main supporter of the RAVE Act -- a nightmare of a law that was apparently intended in part as a way to charge crack house owners for illegal activity taking place on their premises, but which has resulted in night club owners and rave organizers being arrested for merely hosting parties. (Even Fox News has called the act "raving lunacy.")

If Palin has a stance on copyright reform we haven't heard about it, although apparently she has a record of trying to burn -- er, ban -- certain books from the state's libraries. This indicates that she might have a latent Tipper Gore-like tendency to censor music as well, despite her appreciation of the creators of post-innuendo ditties as "Hot for Teacher" and "Everybody Wants Some."

On the balance, neither candidate appears to offer much for music fans, although Palin doesn't have much of a voting record to compare with that of the longtime senator Biden. But on the surface, we'd have to imagine that a Van Halen fan who used to wear humorous T-shirts ("I may be broke but I'm not flat busted") is a better choice than a spoilsport who supported the Perform and Rave Acts.

As for the presidential candidates, though, the Democrats have a clearly preferable choice in Obama, who asked the Democratic National Committee to waive the copyright on debate footage. And as he told Rolling Stone, he has all sorts of decent stuff on his iPod (Stevie Wonder, Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Jay-Z and Bob Dylan).

McCain, on the other hand, told Blender that he counts two ABBA songs ("Dancing Queen" and "Take A Chance On Me") among his all time top ten favorite songs. "If there's anything I'm lacking in, I've got to tell you, it's taste in music and art and other great things in life," McCain told the Aspen Institute.

But the 72-year-old presidential hopeful couldn't resist coming to the defense of his favorite band. "Everybody says they hate ABBA. How come everybody goes to (the musical) 'Mamma Mia?'"

See Also:

• Moby On McCain, Cocaine and Hookers
• Ludacris' 'Obama Is Here' Song Invites, Ignites Controversy
• McCain Offends Van Halen, Sucks at Music
• First Paris, Now This: Jackson Browne Sues John McCain
• Barack Obama Doesn't Want to Work on Maggie's Farm No More

(Biden photo: Joe Crimmings Photography; Palin photo courtesy of Palin family via AP)

New York Times:
John McCain's Acceptance Speech  —  The following is a transcript of Senator John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, as recorded by CQ Transcriptions.  —  MCCAIN: Thank you.  Thank you all very much.  Thank you.  —  Tonight, I have a privilege given few Americans: the privilege of

You've heard why John McCain is not going to vote for Senator Barack Obama now here why squirrels aren't either. John McCain video coming soon! alanchapmanshow.com

Author: alanchapmanshow Keywords: squirrels barack obama john mcCain George Bush alan chapman show animation vote field hockey cursing basketball Added: September 4, 2008

Wednesday I posted about the Log Cabin Republican endorsement of John McCain for President (here's LCR President Patrick Sammon discussing the endorsement on CNN), and now we have video (courtesy of Think Progress)of senior campaign strategist Steve Schmidt addressing the group Thursday at a luncheon to thank them for their support.

Video, AFTER THE JUMP...

Said Schmidt: "I just wanted to take a second to come by and pay my respect and the campaign’s respect to your organization and to your group. At a personal level, my sister and her partner are an important part of my life and our children’s life. I admire your group and your organization and I encourage you to keep fighting for what you believe in because the day is going to come. (applause)...You are an important part of our party, the party of Abraham Lincoln. We as Republicans are the party of freedom and as a party we strive to reach that goal. We look forward to your support and your help for the senator."

Schmidt then hailed Sarah Palin's arrival (Palin has opposed civil unions, gay marriage, hate crime laws including sexual orientation, benefits for same-sex partners) as a force in the party: "We had a great night last night. I will just tell you that in the last 48 hours the smearing and the defamation of this family is unlike anything I have ever seen. You saw this beautiful American family on the stage last night and you saw one of the great speeches in the history of political conventions by an accomplished governor of a state who has just announced herself as a major force in the Republican party in her own right, and I think the other side has got to be sitting on the other side saying 'oh - my - God.'"

Schmidt's appearance, of course, was given a hearty round of applause by the group.

Watch the video, AFTER THE JUMP...

I have, like some of you I am sure, been listening to the various promises of the political parties and candidates over the past two weeks. This week it is the Republican Party’s turn to take the stage and tell us why we should vote for McCain–Palin on November 4. While all of this has been going on our nation has also faced another great storm that hit our southern coast Sunday–Monday. The truth of the matter is obvious—we face trials for sure but we are the most prosperous nation on the planet and may well be the most self-indulgent and self-centered as well. (Most European nations excepted, but then they do not enjoy our wealth either!)

This all came home to me as I listened to all the talk about our gloomy economy over the past two weeks. How many of us realize that we are not in a recession, that our unemployment numbers are the envy of most Western nations, and that even the storms that hit our coast are nothing like the trials of the life-and-death many in the world face month-in and month-out? When former-Senator Phil Gramm said we were a nation of “whiners” the McCain campaign had to let him go. All he actually did was speak the truth.

While the storms hit us, and we waited for the Republican answers to our problems to unfold in St. Paul, I watched three documentaries on Sunday-Monday. These were Facing Sudan, The Lost Boys of Sudan, and Ghosts of Rwanda. If you can’t go to Africa, but want to see what much of the world sees every day, watch these films. I formed several conclusions as a result of my weekend viewing and pondering.

1. Most Americans do not care at all that a full-blown genocide destroyed over 800,000 people in Rwanda in 1994. The Clinton administration did nothing, absolutely nothing. And when President Clinton visited Rwanda in 1998 he never once apologized for doing his nothing, though he expressed regret in his typical fashion.

One person in one of these films said, “America doesn’t have friends in the world, we have allies.” We help nations when it is in our national interest, as some believe that it is in Iraq. The one American of the Clinton era who came across as a hero in the Rwandan film was Madeline Albright. She was our ambassador to the UN at the time and argued powerfully for the U.S. to help the Tutsi’s who were being slaughtered during a fatal 100 day period of time. When ten UN peacekeepers from Belgium were brutally killed the whole world decided to look the other way and thus supported Belgium in running from the problems. Never was the UN so totally ineffective. Even Kofi Anan, the general secretary at the time, admitted the same on the film about Rwanda.

2. Most Americans know little or nothing about Sudan either, and more particularly about Darfur. Northern and Southern Sudan have been locked in a brutal bloody conflict, to varying degrees, for five decades. The Islamic radicals of the north want to kill and dominate the Christians in the south. This is simplistic, but it is essentially the truth. The people of the south seem to know that a unified Sudan will never work. The rest of the world keeps trying to make them make it work. Well over a million people have died and multitudes are still dying in camps every day. Do we care? Not much if the truth is known. Following the Holocaust we said, "Never again." We didn't mean it, at least when the victims are black and live in Africa.

3. The individuals who did care, and actually did something in both instances (Rwanda and Sudan), were very often women; e.g., college students, homemakers, etc. Men were too busy, or too political, it seemed. They were managing the agenda while the women decided to care about real dying people. Women were the ones who time and time again showed mercy and rose up to try just solutions that helped foster peace and save real lives. In America alone, if women were not concerned about Africa I wonder who would care. (This is simplistic I am sure but there is a lot of truth in my generalization and it shows in these three films powerfully.) This reminds me of a simple fact—we need women in leadership right alongside of men if we are to effectively engage the modern world with both authority and compassion. God made us both male and female in his image. We need to embrace the contributions of all who are made in his image if we are to solve any of the problems humanity faces.

These three films are all valuable in very different ways. The one on Rwanda was a Frontline (PBS) presentation and was of the highest quality. The two on Sudan are personal projects done by filmmakers who wanted to tell a story and thus used their money and talent to do it. These are less well done professionally but in their own way they are very moving pieces that arouse the conscience.

Next time you want to complain about America, especially while your emotions are stirred up about how bad the economy is in this country, stop and pay attention to the rest of the world. 99% of our news reporting in this country is Ameri-centric. My biggest argument with our media is not about the liberal media bias politically, which the right turns into the biggest story about the media during election seasons. (“Fox News is so over the top, or MSNBC is so liberal that it is goofy!”) My biggest beef with our media, which is in fact predominantly liberal in ideology, is that they are so grossly inconsistent given their ideologically liberal ethos. They care about almost nothing if it doesn't have to do directly with Americans. If we are talking about people we could actually save in Africa they almost never use their considerable influence to tell these stories at all.

While I am at it, it is known that I am not the biggest George W. Bush fan in the world but liberal commentators hardly ever note that this president has done far more to help in Africa than his predecessor every dreamed of doing. To Clinton’s credit he has done more out of office than he did in office to help Africans. But please be fair. No one in our highest levels of power has mobilized our nation to care and the reason is really quite easy to see. If they tried most Americans would not be interested. We are too self-centered to care. Tragically this includes most churches as well as secular agencies, though the church seems to have a far better record on African involvement than any other American institution. Watch these videos and you will see what I mean.

New York Times:
Obama to Dispatch Female Surrogates  —  ST. PAUL — Senator Barack Obama will increasingly lean on prominent Democratic women to undercut Gov. Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain, dispatching Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to Florida on Monday and creating a rapid-response team …

All right. As far as I can make out, our debate over Sarah Palin revolves around three distinct issues, all three of which have merged in a highly entertaining and jumbled fashion -- a sort of epistemological pile-up.

The first is the propriety of voting for a Republican. A large number of us (myself included) have been let down so many times by these people that anything, no matter how good it looks, feels to us like Lucy setting up the football for Charlie Brown one more time. Just one more time. Please?

The second issue is the propriety of voting for a woman to hold civil office, exercising authority over men in that realm. Some argue from the clear biblical teaching on male headship in the family and the equally clear biblical teaching on the requirement for male leadership in the Church, and say that we can extend this restriction into the civil realm. And I believe that we could do this, were it not for the clear scriptural counterexample.

And last, we have the concerns that revolve around the age of Sarah Palin's children. The idea is that there is no way for her to fulfill her obligations to her family, which are fixed by God, and also fulfill the obligations she would have as vice-president.

Some of those with concerns only have one of these concerns. Some have all three. Some don't have any. Shake vigorously and discuss. For my purposes here, I want to address them seriatim.

First, it has been well said that Washington contains two parties -- the Evil Party and the Stupid Party. And some of us began to suspect a number of years ago that the stupidity of the SP was beginning to look like it was being done on purpose, making it therefore a higher and more nefarious form of evil. The serpent was more subtle than all the beasts of the field.

At the end of the day, this issue is a matter of trust and the believability of individuals. And if someone trusts someone that you cannot bring yourself to trust, then that's okay. Free country. It would be a moral issue if someone were to say, "Yes, I know these promises are all a sham, but I am going to pretend to believe them anyway." That is willful blindness. But differences of opinion are not in that category. I can easily see how men of good conscience could differ over whether Ronald Reagan's campaign promises were trustworthy or not. If you don't believe it, then don't. It is the candidate's job to persuade you, not your job to prove to his satisfaction that he is untrustworthy.

For what it is worth, as I think back over all the votes I have cast in presidential elections from the seventies down to the present, sometimes for Republicans and more recently not, the only person that I know I would vote for again is Ronald Reagan. And this despite the fact that he had a pretty rocky relationship with some of his kids, and on that basis I believe him to have been disqualified to hold office in a local church. The offices are different. I would do this because I agreed with him on the key political issues, and believed that he agreed with me. I can understand why others would not believe him -- but I do maintain that I can think this way without being a ninnyhammer.

The idea that women should be excluded from civil office, period, is an exegetical question, and one that I believe that can be settled because of the perspicuity of Scripture.

A curse is pronounced on a people in Isaiah 3:12 that is relevant to this discussion. It is possible that this is not referring to actual women, but to girly men, to effeminate men. To men of arrested development, and a junior high approach to sex. Bill Clinton comes to mind. In other words, the men who rule are being called womanish, or childish. Like calling Ralph Nader matronly.

Like I said, that is possible. But I take it in the more straightforward sense -- that a society is under a weight of judgment when it has a dearth of men capable of exercising godly rule. This could happen because the men are all dead, or gone, or they are abdicating wimps. In any case, I believe this really would be a judgment on a society. But it has nothing to do with -- for example -- Elizabethan England, one of the most masculine societies our civilization has ever produced. Whatever was going on in that day, Isaiah 3:12 wasn't in the mix.

Because a husband is the head of his wife, for a wife to rule in the household inverts God's order. But this does not mean that a wife cannot ever rule a household. In Acts 16, Lydia is very clearly the head of her household. This means that she had no husband, but without a husband, the household was her household. Given her status as a wealthy merchant, and the average size of that kind of household back in the day, she probably had a couple hundred people serving in that household.

But Scripture is silent on the numbers, so let me use a contemporary example. Suppose we have a husband and wife who are very wealthy. They have expansive grounds, and several lucrative businesses. He passes away, and she inherits all of it. After life gets back to normal, does she have the authority to tell the male gardener what to do? Can she tell the factory foreman, who is also male, what he should do? Can she exercise authority over full-grown men? You bet she can. There is nothing in the least disordered about it. Bring it down to a smaller scale. She owns a restaurant that she inherited from her husband. She is the manager. Can she tell the twenty-one-year-old dishwasher to step it up a bit, paco? Can she tell the hashslinger to sling hash a little faster? Of course. To argue otherwise is to fall into the fatal trap that feminists fall into all the time -- they insist on getting into arguments with reality. They love arguing with the way things are.

Because men don't usually all die at the same time, and because they are the heads of their homes, most businesses will be run by men. Most corporations will be run by men. Most societies will be run by men. This is as it should be, and I find nothing to complain about. Who is complaining? Not me, said the little black duck. But when the weird circumstance comes along and a male senator dies, and the party installs his widow in his place, I find nothing to complain about there either. Here and there this kind of thing happens, and I don't care.

Of course I do care when a woman has been running for president since kindergarten. That is unseemly, but let us not mention names. But it is hardly better when a guy does it.

This kind of normal anomaly is exactly what we find in Scripture in the case of Deborah. This is obviously an unusual circumstance, but there is nothing in the text to suggest that it was unusual because of all the wimpy men. Deborah was a mother in Israel (Judg. 5:7), and she was married to Lapidoth (Judg. 4:4). She authoritatively summoned Barak and told him what he needed to do with his armies (Judg. 4:6). He refused to go unless she went with him. She responded that because of his conditions, the glory of killing Sisera would go to a woman, not a man. And that was fulfilled in the heroic actions of Jael the wife of Heber.

But notice what this means. Barak lost glory that was coming to him because he did not just simply obey the word fo the Lord that came to him. Talking back to a prophet, and setting conditions on your obedience, is not the way to go. That was the problem. Barak forfeited honor because he did not obey a woman.

Deborah did not say that the glory of Sisera's death would go to a woman because Barak had obeyed her first summons. She did not say that there was any problem whatever with him functioning as a general under a female leader in Israel. She did not say, nor does the text say, that there was anything wrong with what she was doing. The text does not breathe a hint of disapproval, and I would suggest that it is dangerous for us to treat this as anything other than what it appears to be in the text -- a curious but lawful exception to the way things usually go.

St. Paul bars women from rule in the church. So should we. Paul teaches that men are head over their wives. So should we. Luke teaches that a woman can function in a household without a head over her. So should we. The writer of Judges, without blinking, tells us of the faithful rule of Deborah, a mother in Israel. We shouldn't blink either, not if we begin and end, where we should, with the Bible.

The third issue is the number of Sarah Palin's kids, and their ages. This is the one that has the most compelling weight, at least in my thinking. How can she possibly discharge her responsibilities in the home and in the office of vice-presidency simultaneously? It is a very good question and, were I her pastor, it is one that I would have pressed on Palins in all sincerity. It is not an irrational question, but I don't really think I would have had to press it. In fact, it is so obvious that I have trouble believing that Todd and Sarah Palin didn't spend long hours talking about what they would do if this, and if that. I wasn't there, so I don't know how well or how poorly they are going to arrange it. We shall see. I honestly don't know how they will do, although the signs appear to me to be at least somewhat hopeful. Despite their problems, the family appears to be tightly-knit. Their oldest son is now in the army, and off on his own. Their second is going to be married soon. That leaves three.

In that context, I need to say that I am not quite sure how to bring up the next point. Americans are uncomfortable with "aristocracy," with those who can afford servants. But if she is elected, like it or not, Sarah Palin will then be in that class. As she made apparent in her speech last night, when she told us how she let the cook go so that she, the governor, could cook the meals instead, she probably won't like having servants around any more than a bunch of her critics like her having them around. But she will still have them, and if she organizes her life with her priorities remaining with her family, as she ought to, then it is not necessary to hold dogmatically that the family has to turn out a train wreck because of this. Could be, but we don't know yet, and we can't know without a good more information.

Think that is enough for now? But there will be more later.

On the September 3 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "believes and favors infanticide. Not just abortion, but infanticide." He continued: "This guy approves of abortion in the fourth trimester." As Media Matters for America has documented, Limbaugh has repeatedly distorted Obama's position on the so-called "born alive" bills during his time as an Illinois state senator by declaring that Obama's opposition to the bills amounted to support for infanticide. In fact, Obama and other opponents said the bills posed a threat to abortion rights and were unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct that these bills purported to address.

Since August 19, Limbaugh has repeatedly called Obama a supporter of "infanticide":

• On the August 19 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said Obama "believes in infanticide."

• On his August 20 program, Limbaugh claimed that "Obama lobbied for infanticide." He later said, "You know, abortion's one thing; infanticide is quite another, and it is now widely known that Obama was all for infanticide. It's the only way you can put it."

• Discussing the controversy over the number of houses Sen. John McCain owns, Limbaugh said on his August 21 show: "Obama wants to talk about numbers and houses? Talk about how many babies have died because of Obama's support for infanticide."

• On August 22, Limbaugh said Obama "really admires" China's one-child policy. He went on to say: "[M]ost people want a son. And if they are pregnant with a daughter, what do they do? They abort, and they keep aborting until they get a son. Now that's a policy Obama can support. That's a policy Obama likes. He's for infanticide. It is not an overstatement to say so."

• On his August 25 show, Limbaugh said Obama is "an infanticide nominee," and claimed Obama is "for infanticide."

• On his August 26 program, Limbaugh said of the Democratic Party: "So, here's a party trying to present itself as a newly-found faith party -- that they understand people's values -- and their nominee believes in infanticide."

• On August 28, Limbaugh said of Obama: "What has complicated his mental journey are his political ambitions. His desire to hold high public office has required this confused man to lie about his sometimes bizarre judgments such as supporting infanticide."

• On his September 2 program, Limbaugh said Obama "supports infanticide" and "supports the killing of babies born alive as the result of botched abortions."

From the September 3 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: What is it with liberals and children? We hear from liberals all the time that we must do this and we must do that for the children, do we not? Yet, they've nominated a guy who believes and favors infanticide. Not just abortion, but infanticide. This guy approves of abortion in the fourth trimester. The drive-by media favors waiting 17 years to destroy pregnant teenagers. Seventeen years is how old Sarah Palin's daughter is. And I guess if you're 17 and you're the daughter of a woman who doesn't fit to what the liberal mold is, then you can destroy that child, too.

What is it? What is it with this "liberals and children -- this is for the children" business? Liberals are child abusers -- partial birth abortion, infanticide, now doing their best to deliver enough deliberate and calculated stress to cause a miscarriage. Has anybody been thinking about that on this 17-year-old little girl? For the children? What part did I miss, ladies and gentlemen?

Oh, and how about this? How about that report we had a couple weeks ago -- 100 university presidents want to lower the drinking age. They say they're for the children. They say they're for this and that. You know they're passing out condoms. They want to pass out condoms in the schools. They want to pass out birth control pills in the schools. The only thing they don't want to pass around is a pack of cigarettes for afterwards.

Dirty little secret: The Democrats have no Sarah Palin on their side, even liberal Democrat men are not her equal. As I say, Barack Obama is half the man Sarah Palin is.

From the September 2 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: But this is not a media anal exam; this is a media uterus exam -- a uterus exam that is taking place here by the drive-by media shamelessly. I know people know this getting into the game. This is what it's about. You don't get in it if you don't expect this to happen, but I hope they keep this up because it's going to backfire on them in a major way.

Stop and think of this. What are we really talking about? What are the drive-bys talking about? We're talking about a woman, Sarah Palin, who gave birth to a Down syndrome child and now they're suggesting that she shouldn't have done that -- and I've got the audio coming up -- and that she shouldn't have flown while she was pregnant with the Down syndrome child. She was being totally irresponsible here.

And on the other side, we have Barack Obama who supports infanticide, who supports the killing of babies born alive as the result of botched abortions, and guess where the drive-bys find the controversy.

From the August 28 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Barack Obama, giving him the benefit of the doubt, is confused. He's written two autobiographies by age 47, having not done diddlysquat -- except learn how to be a thug in Chicago. He's written two autobiographies in an attempt to work through his circumstances and his judgments.

What has complicated his mental journey are his political ambitions. His desire to hold high public office has required this confused man to lie about his sometimes bizarre judgments such as supporting infanticide; to li