Unanimous response from us among the Right: McCain lept forward by bounds in the visit with Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church this past weekend. And, Obama — who I certainly don’t support politically but who I’d anticipated would do reasonably w…

I post this quote – because apparently some of us forget the power of images – and how they can backfire – big time.
It will actually cause people to vote for Obama – not to mention, causing this blog, as well as, Republicans in general, to be looked upon with disdain.

We don’t see the image of Christ being used in commercials – for reasons I don’t need to explain.

Well – the damage is already done.
This little joke by just a few – along with the linking of the Messiah name with the Obama name – is not going to sit well not only with many people of Faith – but with those with a
perceived notion that a candidate’s opponent has been unfair. (Even though the perceived unfairness is not directly attributable to the opponent.)

I would pull the image from this blog – either way – but what do I know.

(Stop comment abuse – 3 or less per post is sane)

He gets confused sometimes, you know:

Well you have to cut “The Golden Calf” some slack. Campaigning is hard and he gets tired. you must forgive him if he is forced into pulling statistics out of his butt and for making statements about things that either just plain don’t make sense or have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

After all, you know damn well that the Left would do the same for McCain.

(Wow…I got through all of that without vomitting one time in my mouth. A new record.)

Obviously I have no idea what numbers Obama was actually considering when he made that statement. That said, politicians have the right to present the numbers and interpretations of those numbers that best suit them, so long as the numbers are legit and the interpretations of such are reasonable. I am sure you would agree that every politician does that. It is one thing to argue about which data and which interpretation is more accurate, but I think there is a big difference between that and calling someone a liar, which is what see dub did, and basically what you are doing. Heck, see dub has not even seen fit to clarify what it was Obama actually said. He still is implying Obama said abortions went up. As for the 4 years of data, it is entirely reasonable in my opinion to rely on the CDC’s figures and those are the must up to date figures available. Again, it is fair to point out that it only covers the first 4 years of Bush’s administration. But it is quite another to claim that Obama is lying.

Is this not the same as me describing you as an “undergraduate” by ignoring your 2-4 years of law school?

Actually, that would probably garner me more respect here.

He doesn’t have to be “right” since he is the Obamessiah. Again, the MSM has got him covered on this too.

On August 18th, 2008 at 11:10 am, chapoutier said:

Thanks for clarifying.

Also, I agree that the numbers you presented haven’t decreased much on an absolute basis. It wouldn’t be disingenuous to consider them flat. However, I really didn’t look at this incident carefully.

I still don’t think it is disingenuous for Obama to say that abortions haven’t gone down under Bush, at least not from 2001-2004.

But, in making such an assertion, wouldn’t it be disingenuous for Obama to only cite four years out of an eight year record…without clarifying his assertion as such?

Is this not the same as me describing you as an “undergraduate” by ignoring your 2-4 years of law school? In asserting this by referring to your undergraduate transcript, am I not being dishonest by not acknowledging your graduate work as well?

And the thing that gets me is – it was clearly evident by the released record of his vote that Obama has been dishonest, for 5 years now, in classifying his vote down of the “Born Alive” legislation as based on a lack of federal wording protecting Roe. With the release of this Illinois Senate documentation, Obama will now be forced to change the reason why he voted this piece of legislation down.

Knowing this now, why would you give this same man the benefit of the doubt concerning his misrepresentation of abortion statistics over the past eight years? Haven’t the events of this past week proven to you that the man is quite capable of dishonesty?

My understanding is that if it can be shown to not have occurred by chance. I do understand that even a small % change can be statistically significant.

Looking back on my posts, yes I was using that term pretty fast and loose. Looking at the trendline, however I still don’t think it is disingenuous for Obama to say that abortions haven’t gone down under Bush, at least not from 2001-2004.

On August 17th, 2008 at 7:34 pm, chapoutier said:

I would say that there has been no statistically significant change from 2001 to 2004, i.e., there is a flatline, which is why the line on the chart I link to is pretty flat.

chapoutier, either you’re wrong or you’ve misused the term statistically significant. I’ll give you enough credit to assume misuse.

Please review the definition of the term “statistcally significant” and make a correction.

they said donations from active duty military personnel were six times higher for obama than mccain.

The report didn’t say that either, the total donations are listed in my post above yours. The lib media grabbed a hold of a specific section of a portion of donations over 200 dollars and ran with it and made headlines out of it to fire up their liberal base.

On August 18th, 2008 at 6:11 am, nero said:

If McCain was a true conservative he wouldn’t be losing to Obama among support from the military. 6 to 1 active military overseas donate to Obama. I saw this on fox news if it matters

Another knucklehead who is misrepresenting statistics. This has been debated twice on this blog with two different people, amazing to see how much ignorance of the facts exist out there.

The report tracked donations of $200 or more. It found that 859 members of the military donated a total of $335,536 to Obama. McCain received $280,513 from 558 military donors.

I’ll ask you the same thing I asked MJ and neocon527, list me officer and enlisted salaries and explain to me in laymans terms how the average enlisted guy who has bills and a family on that salary can afford to give over 200 dollars (which is all the government keeps track of for reporting purposes to the public). 1417 total donations to both McCain and Obama out of 3+ million on active duty and active reserve? Officers have a lot more disposable cash and some of them (like the fired General Clark) only want more power and shift with the wind. I would love to see what the totals under 200 dollars were, because I would bet a large sum of money it is heavily skewed in favor of McCain since enlisted folk knows what happens to military spending and care of troops under a (D) President.