…his gratuitous and partisan attack on Nancy Reagan during his first press conference.
If it is true that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks,” President-elect Obama demonstrated that he is nothing more than a partisan hack, incapable of setting aside his partisan prejudices. He has no concept of what it means to be the President of all the people – nor is it clear that he has any intention of being the president of all of the people. His media defended “off-hand joke” caricaturing a former First Lady of the United States (who is alive to hear it, no less!) is the kind of thing you expect from a low-level campaign hack, not the incoming president of the United States.
Beyond that, he has no concept of what it means to be presidential. I mean, really. He attacks a widely respected former First Lady within minutes of his first press conference. By doing so he betrays his ignorance of history and presidential protocol.
Certainly such remarks aren’t intended for all of the American people. They are remarks one would make when one believes he is in the company of people who share his disdain for Nancy Reagan, not unlike the atmosphere he was in when he threw Americans under the bus who “cling” to guns and religion. It never occurred to him his words would ever leave the room.
In throwing Nancy Reagan under the bus Obama clearly forgot that he was speaking to a national audience. His remarks give clear evidence to that national audience of his disdain for anyone whose ideology is different from his own. What arrogance. What haughtiness. What pride. What pending destruction!
Barack Obama is beneath the dignity of the office of president, and the office of president is WAY above his pay grade, and he himself is proving it every time he opens his mouth and every time he makes a decision.
Hard to defend the title, given the whole thing with the “finger”. I freely admit that I am not giving B.O. any benefit of doubt, other than that he will probably keep his promises…
to the Planned Parenthood Federation of Illinois.
Jeff…I agree that Paul at times needs an ummm or two and I’m sure he agrees as well…He is as passionate about his position as you are about dealing with questions of concern about long standing boundaries. As Paul stated in his talk with you…sometimes it is important to question the questions being raised…are they legitimate, or simply a ploy to rationalize a sin nature..satan is a master in this area…The answers should also be examined… in the light of the full counsel of the Word of God… That is why it is soooo important to have a complete knowledge of that Word…so no one can deceive you…*: )
I like to call Paul and give him crap when he needs it and kudos when he deserves it as well. I thought it was funny to hear him say that my comments on this blog might have had an impression on him. I said he was too stubborn for that. I guess the lefty part is, maybe I always had that tendancy and now I am coming out of the closet. Don’t worry, I am a married man with 3 kids and there will be no Ray Boltz-esc announcements from me. I really have taken a leftward turn over the past month or so and it is due to reading a few books on liberalism and what progressive christians did in late 19th and early 20th century (a time very similar to what we have now with income inequality). Anyway, you can feel free to call me a liberal/progressive, I am starting to look at that label with admiration. Fairness, justice, equality are all attributes of liberalism and I think those are good attributes to live by.
Regarding my hiding, I knew I couldn’t stay away long. I will certaily learn to deal with some of the folks that I disagree with on this blog that are more willing to attack than dialog. Not a big deal. Nancy, I have always appreciated your willingness to keep it above the frey.
‘BTW, Bryce I appreciate your comments, it challenges me to stand up for my own, newly founded (left leaning) positions that I am still working out.”
Arrgh me matey…you may have been a closet lefty…but the the closet door was/is glass…*; )
P.S. I enjoyed your calls on Paul’s program…it’s nice to hear the voices of our blog buddies…*; ) Glad you have forsaken “hiding”.
Guilt by association is one of the oldest tricks in the book, Obama could have done the same as McCain did with all of his and Palin associations. McCain’s transition advisor was a lobbyist for Saddam Hussain, Palin’s husband was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party and anti government secessionist movement. Sarah Palin ex church believes that because of the end times earthly turmoil is only a sign of Jesus’ return (by association a good thing). How about McCain’s association with Chilean dictator Pinochet? The list could go on and on, most of the stuff brought up during the McCain campaign was way over blown and often times taken out of context. I watched Bill Ayers on Good Morning America recently, talk about making something out of nothing, that was way overblown.
BTW, Bryce I appreciate your comments, it challenges me to stand up for my own, newly founded (left leaning) positions that I am still working out.
Is it “fear mongering”, Chis, to take someone at their word?
When only the Right would point out that Obama has been surrounded and mentored by Communists and Socialist his whole life, we were ridiculed and called “Latter-Day Red Baiters”.
As we stand up to the scourge of homosexuality, where the most hateful speech and actions are directed to Christians, now IN as well as out of church, we are called “homophobes” and “bigots” (and worse!)
When we say that an abortion stops a beating heart, we are called sexist and for sending women to the “Dark Ages”
Whne we point out that Black Liberation Theology resembles Soviet style communism more than it resembles Christianity, we are called “racists” and “bigots” by other so-called Christians, despite the fact that Scripture states that “Gog looks on the heart” and does not consider the percentage of melanin in their outer epidemis.
I ask for a fair reading from the panel…Who are the Fear and Hate Mongers?
Chris,
I don’t know if you have a history of being caught up in the right wing but I was a few years back. I now read and listen to the folks I used to and what they say and write is so absurd. Example I was reading an article by Phillis Schlafley and she was saying that Obama was going to pick Bill Ayers as his head of the Education Department and he was going to put the absurd concept of “Social Justice” on the agenda. Heaven forbid we learn to care for all humans no matter the sex, creed, race, religion or orientation. No, God loves bigotry, he honors elevating the white Anglo European Christians above the everyone else. Of course, not all Christians feel as she (most don’t) does but the more I unpack a lot of these stances race and bigotry are at the heart of the issue.
What’s really going to be ironic is that if Christians start having their speech restricted, the ACLU and other civil rights lawyers–the very people the Right despises–will be jumping to their defense in no time…because think how much money lawyers can make defending so many Christians.
I agree with Jeff. I can understand people being concerned about what a new administration, but they just need to chill a bit. Obama’s not going to burn the Constitution, he’s not going to take away everyone’s rights and he’s not going to banish Christians to prison. I’m starting to see just how successful the fear-mongering of the Right really was. Just take a deep breath, chill out and pop a few pills to bring down the blood pressure, man. It’s not the end of the world…and even if it IS, you get to go Home!
I listened to the show from yesterday and I have to tell you brother, I am really getting concerned for you Paul. You are starting to sound like I was 2 years ago. The only difference is I put Bush in the place of Obama. It’s funny how things change with time. It is not going to be that bad, Paul, relax brother, you are at a 10 you need to be at a 3. It will be OK. You say you will be in Jail in 4 years because you refuse to stop speaking out against homosexuality, I think it would be refreshing to hear Christians stop blaming that act and lifestyle for our social ills when divorce and pornography are just as destructive. The fact is, we can’t stop any of the actions, we need to look to Jesus and act as he did, spread the good news of the gospel to those who need it most. I am very encouraged by the Obama administration in that I hope it gives Christians a new perspective on how to change society in a positive way and not a negative way. Paul, don’t worry, if they are going to haul you off to Jail, us “leftist” will be there to ensure that your human rights are not violated. maybe then the realization of the human rights of folks in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib will start to have an effect on your perspective of being jailed without cause. Human rights are right to ALL, a day in court to defend ones self is a right to all. We can no longer let political affiliation effect our stance on how other human beings are being treated because going down that slippery slope could come back to bite us.
Listened to your show today…guess you won’t be using your email for a while…I’m glad Father God is still in the repentance and restoration business and pray that along with the message of conviction, a righteous anger will drive the listening audience to their Bibles to search out the truth and for those who did not take a stand for LIFE… that the truth opens their eyes and works a Godly sorrow that indeed leads to repentance and a change of heart.
Howdy, Paul, wazzup?
Paul,
I have paid close attention to the political process and for republicans to speak of bipartisanship or lack thereof is just plain silly. The republicans are the worst at threatening the filibuster anything they disagree with. There is no working with the new breed of republicans it is either their way or the highway. More folks are paying attention to the political process because it deeply effects their lives and the new breed republicans need to change their tune or it will be the death of there movement.
Hi, Paul.
It really shouldn’t be surprising that Obama would attack Mrs. Reagan. After all, people in his campaign did everything they could to dig up whatever they could find to discredit Joe Wurzelbacher (aka “Joe the Plumber”) when all he did was ask Obama a valid question regarding Obama’s tax plan.
I also agree with you on the Democratic view of bipartisanship. If the Dems can get even one Republican to vote for one of their pet projects then they will likely play that up as bipartisanship as well.
It’s just like the liberal view of diversity and tolerance. If you don’t agree with them regarding affirmative action, gay rights, abortion, etc., then you’re a racist, a homophobe, and against a woman’s “right to choose”.
Hoosier,
You are done posting here. I am so sick of sychophants like you co-opting my blog with your ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the issue.
Go find another blog to attack. You are not welcome here.
Jeff,
Obama has no interest in having true conservatives in his cabinet. That was obvious when Harry Reid told the press that he could support keeping Robert Gates at Defense because “he’s never been a Republican.” That gives fly to the notion that these people are in any way bipartisan. A Democrat thinks he is being bipartisan if he always gets his way.
Hoosier,
Yes – my post was originally about Obama’s partisan attack on Nancy Reagan. To suggest I am being disingeneous about THAT simply because I FURTHER pointed out that he got his First Lady’s wrong shows your own inability to follow logic.
My willingness to grant Obama the benefit of the doubt began the day he was elected. I was willing for set aside my stated prejudices against him and give him the opportunity to be the president of ALL the people UNTIL he couldn’t go five minutes without making it clear he only intends to satisfy his own Democrat constituency by saying things he knows they want to hear him say.
I’m not trying to have it both ways. I was trying to be open-minded until he shut the door with his attack on Nancy Reagan, which if HE were being consistent should have been an attack on Hillary Clinton.
Paul,
You might be eating those words when he reveals his bipartisan cabinet with republicans on the national security side of the isle. I am sure the response will be that they are “left” leaning republicans. We’ll see, but to say he is a partisan hack and to say you were going to ever give him the benefit of the doubt, is a stretch.
Hoosier,
You say:
1) I believe Obama is a liar.
2) I am the political opposite of Obama.
You sir, are a genius at stating the obvious.
The fact that Obama got his First Lady’s wrong and I pointed it out isn’t the justification for my not giving him the benefit of the doubt. He no longer gets the benefit of the doubt because he can’t even go one whole press conference without being a partisan hack.
Chris, I read about the 95 – 10 plan in Tony Campolo’s book Red Letter Christians. The chapter on abortion is on his site. Great stuff, I am encouraged by the forward thinking I see in the younger generation. Solution oriented without compromising on values or positions. Awesome stuff.
Well, the fact is that abortions decreased by 18% during the Clinton administration and only by 8% during Bush’s. Add to that the fact that Obama and the Democrats hope to see abortions decrease by 95% in 10 years through methods other than litigation. Abortion is a symptom of a much deeper problem and the idea is to deal with the problem so that you can stop the symptoms. Dems feel the problem is ultimately poverty and economics, I believe the problem is sinful hearts, but the truth is that the solution to both can be found without litigation. God is Pro-Life but tell me where in Scripture it says that God is of the Pro-Life movement that believes litigation is the only way to save lives? God is not a Conservative or a Democrat. He’s bigger than both and, as in most things, the Truth lies in the middle and not at man-created fringes.
What plan did John McCain have other than paying lip service to the Conservatives who want to overturn Roe V. Wade, something he could not have even guaranteed to put into effect had he won the election? Abortion has, sadly, been legal since 1973 and we’ve had several Conservative administrations. What gains have we made?
Chris,
I have never given anyone in my congregation any reason to fear recrimination from me for their personal political views. If you were a member of my church and you publicly declared your support for a political candidate who advocated abortion, you would be free to vote your conscience, but I would be free to point you to Scripture where GOD says you are apostate.
You don’t have to spend time praying about an issue where the word of God is clear. You may think me legalistic and that is your perogative. There is no grey area here, Chris. God has clearly spoken, regardless of how many weeks and months you spent in Bible study, prayer and counsel.
It’s not ME you disagree with, it is God. You voted for a man who condemns innocent children to death. How that forwards your agenda to see abortion stopped by means other than legislation is beyond me.
First off, Paul, regarding your references to BO as The Antichrist–in the post previous to this you reference voters chosing “The One.” In a clip a few you weeks back you slugged it “The False Prophet Introducing His Antichrist.” Those are pretty thinly veiled references.
As for saying anyone who voted for Obama being an apostate, I have to agree with Jeff that you’re making a leap. I made my decision to vote for Obama after weeks and months of prayer, Bible study, counsel and more prayer. I am not a gung-ho Obama supporter but I felt he was the best choice of the lot. To say that I am an apostate because of the vote I made AFTER spending so much time with God considering this is offensive and legalistic (and I go to a church with strong theology; you are friends with my pastor).
My vote was not based on wanting abortion or gay marriage. I am opposed to both. Rather, my vote was based on what I believe is the best way to solve those problems. For you to make the leap that my vote must mean I am not a true believe is irresponsible, legalistic and not in-line with the Gospel. I wonder how many in your church were afraid to mention their politics to you or are afraid to speak their mind for fear of recrimination. What would you do to a member of your church if they came to you and said they voted for Obama and feel very strongly that they made the right choice?
I’m not saying this to attack you; I may disagree with your politics but I think the majority of your theology is very solid–that’s what keeps me listening to your show, and I do respect you as a theologian. I respect your view on politics, but I also think you do not give people the lattitude to disagree with you without them fearing that you are judging them.
When Barack Obama accusses a former Republican First Lady of holding seances in the WH when it was actually a DEMOCRAT First Lady, it betrays his partisan heart. THAT is the point of my post.
Obama CALIMS he wants to work with Republicans, but his heart won’t let him, even to the point of assigning blame to a Republican First Lady which actually applies to a DEMOCRAT First Lady.
Will Obama go beyond his apology to Nancy Reagan and correct the record to show that the seances were actually HIS OWN PARTY’s DOING?
“As for this post causing division in the body of Christ, I’m reminded that Jesus said he came to set a man a variance with the members of his own household. If you are willing to put ECONOMY above HUMAN LIFE by voting for Obama – YOU are an apostate and spiritual pretender.”
Paul, you only validated Chris’s point. You broke down and simplified his vote to Economy v Human Life. There are so many other facets to these issues. Conservatism has shown it’s hand to many of us and what we see is not good. The right uses Roe V Wade as a marker and once that is overturned then all is good. No it is not, it will not be outlawed if R v W is overturned. It will go to the States and then there is another long term battle to undertake. The ProLife stance it correct, the way it is faught through political means is wrong.
Chris,
One more time with feeling: it was HILLARY CLINTON, not Nancy Reagan, who held seances in the White House.
Please point to ANY blog post here where I stated that BO was the Antichrist.
As for this post causing division in the body of Christ, I’m reminded that Jesus said he came to set a man a variance with the members of his own household. If you are willing to put ECONOMY above HUMAN LIFE by voting for Obama – YOU are an apostate and spiritual pretender.
I know in this day and age it sounds like an oxymoron but there have been a lot of progressive Christian movements in the past that have challenged the establishment for the good of all. We believe that all people are created in the image of God, even terrorist who want to kill us. We believe that torture is always wrong especially to terrorist who want to kill us. We believe that government can be used to benefit all and to use the mantra of less government to intentionally benefit the top earners in a society is wrong. We are for life in all forms but question the methods of the Christian right on fighting for life. We recognize that not all issues are black and white and need to be carefully discussed in public debate. We believe that everyone should have a place to lay their head and everyone should be able to see the doctor. We believe that not only did Jesus’ life and death present us with the ability for salvation but that the red letters of what he actually said, if followed will move us to a more progressive, loving, caring society. We believe that it is not just about the after life but that this life is important too. We believe that God cares how we perform in helping the least of these. We believe that free markets that are only interested in a profit at the detriment of it’s employee’s and the environment is wrong. There are many other; I am really a recent convert to this idea. I am reading The power of Progress by John Podesta and it is really opened my eyes to what happened in the late 19th and early 20th century and how progressive Christians effected the society for the good.
PosterBoy,
After reading your comments, you are not welcome here. It’s one thing to enagage the issues, its another thing to get personal.
Please do not post here again.
Poster Boy,
Would it make a difference to you if Obama actually got it WRONG and “the occultic, seance seeking first lady” were actually HILLARY CLINTON and NOT Nancy Reagan?
Guess what? Obama got it WRONG! Nancy Reagan consulted astrologists; but it was HILLARY CLINTON who actually held seances in the White House in an attempt to channel the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07092405.html.
Will the mainstream media correct Obama’s gaffe or even point it out?
And why do the leftist loonies all seem to migrate here?
“Progressive Christian” Jeff, what is that? …* ; ) While I agree that Nancy Reagan’s involvement with the seance crowd was very sad for a person in her position…it certainly was equally sad for Obama to bring her into the lime light in such an uncomplimentary way. Both were/are wrong and bring shame on our country’s highest office.
I know I haven’t read every word on this blog…I definitely missed the part where Paul said BO was the anti-christ. While a whiff of it may have passed me by here and there…I don’t recall Paul stating that.
I think all PosterBoy is saying is that the attack on Obama is so transparent it is silly to say “I was willing to giving him the benefit of the doubt”. I don’t think there ever was that willingness and this attack is just an excuse to go on the attack because, “how dare Obama be a “partisan””. Anyone who pays attention to politics and policy knows that the right wing has been the least partisan group. It’s funny how the only time a right winger wants partisanship is when it benefits them. One of the few members of the right to ever reach across the isle in recent history is John McCain, and one of the reasons why the right had “issue” with him. It truly is a shame when we are known as “republicans” before we are known as Christians. I was on Paul’s show the other day and mentioned that through this election cycle both the conservative Christians and conservative political movements have completely lost me. Their methods have opened the door for other more rational voices to listen to. Unless they change I doubt they will never assume power again, in 4 years there is going to be a lot of young voters that are going to be energized by progressive politics that says everyone deserves a chance for success, not just the top 1%. I have gone from a conservative Christian who voted for Bush twice to a progressive Christian in only a couple of years. I am very thankful to Paul for opening my eyes and helping my shift in mindset. Over the past few years I have tested my new way of thinking with folks here and it has only been confirmed. Finally, can we all agree that this country is in bad shape, after almost 30 years of supply side economics we are in a mess, this kind of attack on the new president will do nothing to improve things. I was hoping that this would not happen, but I guess I am naive.
BTW, for those who love conspiracies. Look for the Mormon church to forge a political merger with the evangelical community and elevate Mitt Romney for 2012. The Mormons put huge money into the passing Prop 8 in California. I think they want to show the Dobson’s of the world that a Mormon president will fight for their social causes. Also, there is word that all these attacks on Palin are from the Romney folks that worked in McCain’s campaign after Romney bowed out. We’ll see how it all works out, I have been wrong before as I thought it was baked in the cake that Clinton was going to win back in 2007. I was very wrong on that.
This is just a stupid argument anyway. I mean, can anyone REALLY defend Nancy Reagan’s seances?
But then again, you know Republicans. You don’t mess with Saint Ronnie or his wife. Even though, you know, he was the original celebrity President.
and no, Paul was never going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. When you voice thoughts that the man may be the AntiChrist, you’ve already showed your hand.
So in other words, you are saying you expect Obama to be better than Bush, therefore he can ridicule people in a sarcastic tone during his first press conference as the President Elect. I get it now.
PosterBoy,
I had the same reaction to Obama’s press conference and turned it off after that comment. His “joke”, IN CONTEXT, was offered in replacement of his stammering. Perhaps if a teleprompter had been near, he would not have made it, but we’ve all seen Obama’s missteps when one is not present. Add this one to the list. Only, unlike saying there are 57 states which we can all laugh off, this one was a direct shot at a beloved former first lady.