...just as the Messiah is in the results. The content of Weisberg's latest, rather like the content of all Weisberg's output this campaign season, is not worth more than cursory analysis. Not because it isn't well-written. It is. But its content is pure contingency, pure means-to-an-end happenstance. It's reasoned cursorily, because the substance is post hoc. So what's the "hoc"?

He loves Obama, and despises Palin.

Weisberg sat down in the first place not to explore the ethical nuances and pragmatic upshot of pro-life versus pro-life viewpoints, which occurred to him as an idea for an article in the course of observing emergent campaign issues. Not hardly. Instead, Weisberg sat down to write something which would assist Obama by demonizing Palin, and lit upon pro-life issues as a likely vehicle. That's his right, and our right to enjoy it, argue with it, or otherwise engage it on its merits.

But it's partisan hackwork. It could as easily be about animal rights, Pentecostal denominations, or third-tier state universities. Whatever helps. But it's partisan hackwork.

I'm with you on this one. I think McCain and Obama are both pretty moderate on the subject, but the factions just seem to take over and drown out reality during election years.

John McCain has voted against not only every congressional measure that might have loosened abortion restrictions, he has voted against every Congressional measure that included any form of contraception, including paying for contraception for military medical benefits (as they do for Viagra). He has also voted against every international aid measure that included contraception.

Please explain exactly where John McCain has been moderate.

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

I think about trying to reason with you and if you knew my history, you'd understand what a task it is for me BUT you just keep posting don't do it dude!

If there is one thing that has become apparent about the Fray, it's that it is a forum much like a literary- roman coliseum experiment in Darwinism. That is to say, rather than discussing any issue people love to talk to themselves top posting as opposed responding to a person regarding a subject, then badgering their fellow humans to a pulp without regard. Me, I am the former queen of this -randomly & with much angst posting then realizing no one is listening and aimlessly meandering in the lowest muck of writing until a light bulb goes off and I repent.

Not suggested use of computer or human. If you find that you enjoy this though, the Ballot Box is a great place to roam where the badgers and pythons frequently bash one another in jest and truth as sport.

Have fun and peace to you.

Assuming that was dircted at me, my response was that John McCain is not, by any measure, moderate. And I included proof.

Independence:

I'm with you on this one. I think McCain and Obama are both pretty moderate on the subject, but the factions just seem to take over and drown out reality during election years.

McCain WAS moderate on it, until he realized he was running for president and could talk a huge legion of religious followers into voting for him if he told them what they wanted to hear.

How many nominees of either party in the last several elections outlined in accurate detail what they actually believed and actually wished to change? Maybe Reagan. The rest have pursued a profile dictated by focus-groups' Strong Negative Reactions----Obama and McCain included. Whomever manages to offend or alienate the fewest voters wins the election, it seems, which is why smears and gaffe-meat remain at such a premium.

John McCain handed over the choice of his Vice Pesident to James Dobson. What makes you think he did not promise to hand over the rest of his administration as well?

has repeatedly squealed "Betrayal" since the Moral Majority first hit the bigtime, I'll ask what makes you think McCain will even remember Dobson's name after his election?