Obama and McCain

As this fiasco moves along, I thought this might be a good thread to enter comparisons as they develop.  See this site:  While there vote "No' to Leiberman/Warner Climate Security Act.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/tsowell/2008/ts_06051.shtml

Can you believe the arrogance, the sheer gall of Senator Barack Obama? 

His statement of resignation from Trinity Church is probably his most outrageous utterance yet -- more contemptuous of America than his sneering description of jobless workers in Pennsylvania who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them..."

Take a close look.  In announcing his intention to leave Trinity Church -- a broiling cauldron of screaming, anti-American sentiments -- Obama said coolly and condescendingly:

"I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church... The church has been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them... I know it's the right thing to do for the church...." [Emphasis Mine]

Any rational and patriotic American would have said:

I am denouncing this church because I hold patriotic Americans, who believe I should denounce this church, in high regard... The American people have suffered from hearing the outrageous statements that have come from the pulpit at Trinity and I know my resignation is the right thing to do for the American people.

In essence, he's really just saying he's resigning because patriotic Americans like you are too stupid... too ignorant... to know what the enlightened and elite people like himself and the folks at Trinity Church already know... in their opinion, America IS the source of all the evil in the world!

Of course Obama's statement is actually quite typical... not shocking at all.

It actually shows what so many of our elected officials really think... enlightened and elite people such as Senators Richard Lugar, Joe Biden, John Kerry and others.

It shows just how much they hold America in contempt and why they worship at altar of others, including the United Nations!

When Senator Obama and others initially tried to sneak the Global Poverty Act past the America people a few short weeks ago, you made your voices heard loud and clear and forced them to put their plans on hold.

But that's not enough! 

Make no mistake; some of these elected officials will try to pass the Global Poverty Act yet again, when they think you are not watching (many of them probably view the fact that Senator Obama has wrapped-up the Democratic Presidential nomination as an affirmation of their plans to move the Global Poverty Act forward).

That's why we must hit them again and KILL the Global Poverty Act once and for all.

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to President Bush and the Republican Members of the United States Senate.  Tell them in no uncertain terms that you are aware that there are some in the Senate who will once again attempt to force the Global Poverty Act on the American people when they think no one is looking. 

Tell them that is unacceptable and demand they kill the Global Poverty Act once and for all. Make it clear that patriotic Americans will not tolerate the funneling of $845 BILLION into the pockets of corrupt third-world dictators or hate-America bureaucrats at the United Nations.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/globalpovertyactv.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlink above does not appear to function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

Just To Refresh Your Memory On The Global Poverty Act...

What is the Global Poverty Act?

Perhaps it is best explained by reading what conservative movement leaders are saying about it.

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media has written of the Global Poverty Act:

"[T]he legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which... would amount to $845 billion 'over and above what the U.S. already spends.'"

Phyllis Schlafly -- one of the most influential conservative women in American politics -- has called it:

 "Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill..."

Joseph Farah, of WorldNetDaily.com, said of Senator Obama's Global Poverty Act:

"Now comes an even grander proposal by Barack Obama. It's called the Global Poverty Act that would, in the next decade, transfer at least $845 billion of U.S. taxpayer money overseas. Think of Johnson's failed war on poverty going international -- directed not by Americans but by the United Nations."

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to President Bush and the Republican Members of the United States Senate.  Tell them in no uncertain terms that you are aware that there are some in the Senate who will once again attempt to force the Global Poverty Act on the American people when they think no one is looking. 

Tell them that is unacceptable and demand they kill the Global Poverty Act once and for all. Make it clear that patriotic Americans will not tolerate the funneling of $845 BILLION into the pockets of corrupt third-world dictators or hate-America bureaucrats at the United Nations.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/globalpovertyactv.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlink above does not appear to function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

Is The Global Poverty Act Just A Step On The Slippery Slope Toward An Even More Sinister Agenda?

Kincaid makes another, more chilling point:

"The Global Poverty Act would be a giant step toward the [United Nation's] Millennium Goals of global governance and international taxes on Americans."

 If passed, here's what the Act would mandate:

"[A]cting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the United States Government, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further... the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals."

"International organizations?" 

That means the United Nations and its wholly owned subsidiaries -- UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO, and the World Court -- all of them dedicated to the destruction of nationhood. 

"International financial institutions?" 

In effect that means the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund -- organizations that will use tax dollars to promote World Government.

Kincaid again:

"The bill defines the term 'Millennium Development Goals' as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration...  In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to President Bush and the Republican Members of the United States Senate.  Tell them in no uncertain terms that you are aware that there are some in the Senate who will once again attempt to force the Global Poverty Act on the American people when they think no one is looking. 

Tell them that is unacceptable and demand they kill the Global Poverty Act once and for all. Make it clear that patriotic Americans will not tolerate the funneling of $845 BILLION into the pockets of corrupt third-world dictators or hate-America bureaucrats at the United Nations.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/globalpovertyactv.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlink above does not appear to function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

Perhaps It Should Be Called The United States Poverty Bill?

When it comes to foreign aid, the American people increasingly resent the government picking their pockets and sending billions of their hard-earned tax dollars to Third World dictators who despise America and our interests.  And they despise the fact that instead of using the aid money to help their people, many of the corrupt leaders instead line their own pockets.

And, the American people's displeasure is validated by economists who have studied the problem.     

William Easterly, a professor of economics at NYU, asked in the LA Times:

"Where did all the aid money go? The $2.3 trillion, that is, that has been sent to all the world's poor countries over the last five decades. Well, for one thing, it was stuck (and remains stuck) in a 'bureaucracy-to-bureaucracy' aid model in which money gets lost all along the way."

Easterly points out that pouring trillions of dollars into Third World countries "to eliminate worldwide poverty" just doesn't work.

"It shouldn't be too surprising, then, that aid money doesn't reach the poor and instead goes to such dubious projects as the $5-billion Ajaokuta steel mill in Nigeria, which was begun in 1979 and has yet to produce a bar of steel (thanks to the corruption and incompetence of local bureaucrats)."

Richard Rahn, writing in the Brussels Journal, echoed the same sentiment:

" Most serious analysts of the failures of development aid, including a number of government commissions, not only identified corruption in recipient governments as a reason the aid programs failed but, in fact, found the projects actually fueled additional corruption and increased the plight of the people."

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to President Bush and the Republican Members of the United States Senate.  Tell them in no uncertain terms that you are aware that there are some in the Senate who will once again attempt to force the Global Poverty Act on the American people when they think no one is looking. 

Tell them that is unacceptable and demand they kill the Global Poverty Act once and for all. Make it clear that patriotic Americans will not tolerate the funneling of $845 BILLION into the pockets of corrupt third-world dictators or hate-America bureaucrats at the United Nations.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/globalpovertyactv.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlink above does not appear to function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

Or How About, The Global Poverty Assurance Act!

Here's what Obama said in launching this bill:

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces, it must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water."

Don't get us wrong, the elimination of poverty around the globe is a noble goal.

The problem is, it appears our so-called elected leaders who support the Global Poverty Act skipping along the Yellow Brick Road.

As the examples cited by Rahn and Easterly show -- it would actually appear that pouring trillions of dollars into corrupt Third World countries actually makes conditions worse and poor folks poorer!

The people of these developing nations never see a penny of it, much less a dime or a dollar of the trillions of dollars in aid we send. 

But wait a minute!  Before we rush to judgment; let's ask a more important question: DO THESE HANDOUTS HELP AMERICA?  Are we buying friends? 

Let's take a look at votes in the United Nations by a long list of nations wallowing in Uncle Sugar's foreign aid like spoiled hogs:

Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.  Yet, Egypt receives $2 billion annually in Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.  Yet, Jordan receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.  Yet, Pakistan receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time. Yet, India receives $143,699,000 annually in U.S. Foreign Aid.

The Arab states, all recipients of foreign aid, consistently vote against the U.S. by lopsided margins. 

Even Kuwait -- for whose independence American servicemen fought and died -- votes against us 67% of the time!

Yet, many of our elected leaders in Congress want to move the Global Poverty Tax forward. 

Let's kill it once and for all!

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to President Bush and the Republican Members of the United States Senate.  Tell them in no uncertain terms that you are aware that there are some in the Senate who will once again attempt to force the Global Poverty Act on the American people when they think no one is looking. 

Tell them that is unacceptable and demand they kill the Global Poverty Act once and for all. Make it clear that patriotic Americans will not tolerate the funneling of $845 BILLION into the pockets of corrupt third-world dictators or hate-America bureaucrats at the United Nations.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/globalpovertyactv.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlink above does not appear to function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

Yours In Freedom,

nancy sivill said: McCain Poised for Obama Take Down Thursday, June 5, 2008 4:25 PM By: Bill O'Reilly Cutting through all the fog, there are two primary reasons behind Barack Obama's stunning victory over the Clinton machine: authenticity and the war in Iraq. As amply demonstrated, there is simply no comparison between Obama and Hillary Clinton as far as public speaking is concerned. He is eloquent and natural, talking directly to the folks. She is more stilted and rehearsed, talking at the listener. Sen. Clinton comes across as the typical politician, while Sen. Obama seems like a genuine human being. He also outflanked her on the Iraq war. In the beginning of the campaign, Obama bolted from the starting gate flashing his anti-war cred. From the jump, he had been against the action. And now he was the guy who would pull the United States out of the Iraq swamp. Clinton was immediately put on the defensive, as she initially supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein. Also, her entire outlook on confronting Islamic fascism was far too bullish for far-left America. So the Net roots, as they call themselves, flocked to Obama and provided him with vast amounts of money via the Internet. By the time Hillary rallied Democratic moderates, it was too late. Now Obama has achieved the nomination, but his winning primary strategy on Iraq could come back to haunt him in the general election, when the far left becomes rather insignificant. Already John McCain is painting Obama as a terror appeaser who would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. And McCain has some heavy ammunition to back up his attack. In May, American casualties were the lowest since the Iraq war began in 2003. In addition, Iraqi oil production is now at its highest level since Saddam fell. Even the liberal Reuters news agency calls the current situation in Iraq a "dramatic turnabout." Of course, you won't hear much about that in the American press, as the liberal media have much invested in a U.S. defeat in Iraq. But there is no question that the war there can now be won. It's not a lock, but it's certainly a possibility. McCain must make the case that a victory in Iraq, which means the country stabilizes and becomes an ally against Islamic terror and Iran, means a much more secure United States. For the past few weeks, McCain has been spotlighting Iran's villainy; pointing out its support of terror groups like Hezbollah and its outright killing of our forces in Iraq. Quietly, McCain is setting Obama up for a hard right to the jaw. If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq too quickly, the pressure on Iran immediately lightens and the potential for aggression by the bitterly anti-Jewish and anti-American mullahs rises dramatically. Does Obama understand that? Does it matter to him? McCain will confront his young challenger with those questions. Obama's advisers know the Iraq scenario is changing fast. They also understand that the media will ignore the good news for as long as it can. But word will get out and, after years of frustration, Americans could be staring at a success story after all. Not good news for Obama. Veteran TV news anchor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of the book "Who's Looking Out For You?"

Obama and his rabid supporters have managed to alienate almost every single last one of Hillarys moderate and Independent supporters, to such an extent that it won't matter one iota what she asks them to do.  The far-left knocked her down and kicked her hard while she was down there, so much so that everyone knows.  So when they tell her that she better tell her followers to vote for Obama or else there isn't a future for her, it's empty rhetoric - they've already destroyed her.  Moderates and Independents are NOT kool-aid drinkers and they are NOT just going to line up and do as they are told.

nancy sivill said:

President Obama and the Coming Stock Market Crash How destructive to the U.S. economy would a Barack Obama presidency be? An exclusive Newsmax analysis warns: There could be a very rough time ahead. https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/j... target="_blank">Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy. Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending. Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate — something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress. In the coming months — when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate — there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year. All of these issues and more are explored in Newsmax magazine's special report "Obamanomics — the Coming Tax-and-Spend Nightmare," by Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund. This Newsmax magazine special report gives Americans the first in-depth look at the Democratic presidential candidate's likely strategies — and how they will affect not just the larger economy, but your personal wealth as well. Indeed, Obama makes no bones about his plans to go on a tax rampage. Not only would he increase the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to as much as 28 percent, he wants to allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which effectively raises taxes on Americans by tens of billions of dollars. He also wants to do away with the $102,000 FICA payroll tax cap, which means anyone making over $102,000 would pay an additional 7 percent in taxes on earned income. And the loan dividend tax rate George Bush implemented? Under President Obama it will be DOA! If you are concerned about your wealth and family's financial well-being — and that the American economy remains strong — you must read this special report and share it with friends and family. Check out our FREE Offer for this Special Report — https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/j... target="_blank">Go Here Now.     This wide-ranging Newsmax report explores: How Obama's policies could cost more than $850 billion over four years The dire repercussions of Obama's minimum wage proposal for small businesses and retail outlets Obama aides' private and very revealing admission about the candidate's economic savvy The surprising revelation when Barack's own tax returns were reviewed by an expert The "proof" that Obama will kowtow to organized labor Obama's Social Security plan: a giant income-redistribution scheme How Obama's policies could boost some tax rates to 60 percent Leading economist Arthur Laffer's warning on Obamanomics Obama's policies point by point on energy, healthcare, regulation, and the housing crisis Who would lose under Obama's tax proposals — and who would win How Barack "flunked" an easy question on capital gains The Democrat's contradictory statements on tax increases Why Obama's campaign against special interests would backfire Obama's plan to double America's foreign aid How Obama's trade policies would damage U.S. multinationals Obama's embarrassing denial regarding NAFTA The National Taxpayers Union's Obama rating: just 5 percent Obama's misguided views on technology's future How the Democrat would undermine private sector healthcare Obama's tactics — old left-wing populist ploys And much more

Blah, blah, blah.  Yadda, yadda, yadda.  As IF he could mess things up more than they've already been messed up.  Heaven forbid that he should levy taxes on the top 1% and PAY some of these chits we've been racking up in Iraq.

Obama on Immigration:

Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has decided to raise fees on applications to as much as $2,400 for a family of four. Obama’s bill reverses large fee increases for legal immigrants seeking to become citizens and provides grants to states to help promote citizenship. Another key choke point in the process to becoming a legal permanent resident or a U.S. citizen is the F.B.I. name/security check. Many law-abiding legal immigrants see their immigration applications delayed by months and often years as the overwhelmed F.B.I. completes their background checks. Obama introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of these background checks.

In the most recent immigration debate on the U.S. Senate floor, Obama fought to improve and pass a comprehensive bill. Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together and to revisit a controversial new points system that never received a proper public hearing. Obama will continue to work for a comprehensive bill that fixes our broken immigration system

algebra said: Save America, vote third party.

nancy sivill said:

Obama on Immigration:

Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has decided to raise fees on applications to as much as $2,400 for a family of four. Obama’s bill reverses large fee increases for legal immigrants seeking to become citizens and provides grants to states to help promote citizenship. Another key choke point in the process to becoming a legal permanent resident or a U.S. citizen is the F.B.I. name/security check. Many law-abiding legal immigrants see their immigration applications delayed by months and often years as the overwhelmed F.B.I. completes their background checks. Obama introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of these background checks.

In the most recent immigration debate on the U.S. Senate floor, Obama fought to improve and pass a comprehensive bill. Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together and to revisit a controversial new points system that never received a proper public hearing. Obama will continue to work for a comprehensive bill that fixes our broken immigration system

If it is true that we don't care about legal immigration, just illegal immigration, then this would appear to be a step in the right direction.

Obamas too cozy with the wrong ministers and McCain won't go near the conservative ones!!!

McCain Campaign Declines to Meet with Billy Graham Sunday, June 8, 2008 10:10 PM By: Doug Wead Article Font Size   In another disturbing sign that Sen. John McCain has little interest in reaching out to his conservative base, including evangelical Christian voters, his campaign has declined an offer to meet with the Rev. Billy Graham.   For almost six decades, Graham has been America’s most influential preacher and evangelist, a man sought out by every president since Harry Truman.   Today, the 89-year-old Graham is in declining health and stays near his home in Montreat, N.C. His last public appearance, in May 2007, marked the dedication of his library. Three former American presidents -- Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton -- were on hand to honor Graham.   In recent weeks I have been involved with Brian Jacobs, a Fort Worth, Texas, minister and consultant to the Billy Graham Association, to broker a meeting between McCain and Graham. In May, we contacted the McCain campaign with an offer to arrange such a meeting, as we had done between candidate George W. Bush and Graham during the 2000 election.   While meetings with ministers have caused their fair share of controversy in this election cycle, we thought it was worth a try to bring McCain together with America’s most celebrated preacher.   McCain’s campaign responded to Jacobs with the following letter dated June 3, 2008:     Dear Mr. Jacobs,   Thank you for your kind letter offering to set up a personal meeting between Senator McCain and Dr. Billy Graham.   Senator McCain appreciates your invitation and the valuable opportunity it represents. [italics added by McCain campaign]   Unfortunately, I must pass along our regrets and do not foresee an opportunity to add this event to the calendar.   I know you will understand that with the tremendous demands on his time and the large volume of similar requests, events such as this are extremely difficult to schedule even though each one is important. However, we will keep your event in mind should an opportunity present itself in the future.   I know that the Senator would want me to thank you for your interest and to send his very best wishes.   Sincerely,   Amber Johnson Director of Scheduling John McCain 2008         See the actual letter from the McCain campaign Click Here Now       The rejection of an offer to meet with Graham is yet another indication that the McCain campaign has made a deliberate, strategic decision to chart a new course for the GOP, a course without the sizeable evangelical Christian voting bloc serving as its base.   The new course is likely designed to pick up disaffected Democrats, even Sen. Hillary Clinton’s women supporters, who are pro-choice.   The danger for McCain is in his campaign’s failure to grasp the size of the born again vote. Latest surveys show that fully 42 percent of all Americans claim to be “born again.”   But the risk is not just that the Republican nominee will lose evangelical voters but that he will lose its massive infrastructure: megachurches with their schools, television programs and massive mailing lists which traditionally play a crucial role for Republicans in voter registration and voter turnout. The cost to the party of replicating this role themselves would be incalculable.   McCain’s new course is a stunning turnabout for the GOP. In the summer of 1980, Ronald Reagan reached out to evangelicals gathered at the Religious Roundtable in a Dallas, Texas, saying to his audience of 10,000, “I know you can’t endorse me, but I want you to know that I endorse you.” It marked the beginning of a GOP relationship with evangelicals that became a winning coalition for three presidents.   From 1985 through 1990, I was intimately involved with GOP’s outreach to evangelicals, serving as a “religious liaison” for George H.W. Bush’s presidential campaign and answering to his son, my boss, George W. Bush. I later worked in the George H.W. Bush White House dealing with coalitions, including religious groups. From 1998-2000 I was once again in the mix, this time as an informal advisor to George W. Bush.   During the summer months of 2000, when it looked as if the election was going to be close, I began communicating with Jacobs, an evangelical organizer who also worked as a consultant for the Graham organization.   It so happened that Graham would be holding one of his last evangelistic crusades in Jacksonville, Fla., during the last week of the campaign.   The story and our involvement in the Bush-Graham meeting is recounted in the best-selling book "The Preacher and the Politicians" by Time magazine veterans Michael Duffy and Nancy Gibbs.   As history now records, the day before the 2000 election, the candidate, George W. Bush, flew down from Ohio, met publicly with Graham during his Jacksonville crusade at a press conference, and won the state of Florida by 600 votes the next day.   McCain and the Evangelicals   When Jacobs called me earlier this year to suggest that we try to arrange a similar meeting between Graham and McCain, I was skeptical. During the 2000 primary race, McCain called evangelicals “agents of intolerance.”   Though McCain actually is quite engaging with religious believers -- I have been with him a couple of times at religious events and once interviewed him for a television show that aired on a religious network -- his staff is notoriously hostile. McCain adviser, Charlie Black, and campaign manager, Rick Davis, have a long, troubled history with the evangelical wing of the party.   The pair were said to be behind McCain’s decision to throw televangelist John Hagee “under the bus” after audio recordings suggested Hagee believed Adolf Hitler was an agent of God. Though Hagee’s views of “predestination” are mainstream among many Christian denominations and Hagee obviously never suggested support for Hitler or Nazis, McCain called Hagee “crazy.” Only weeks before he denounced Hagee, McCain had publicly trumpeted the pastor’s endorsement.   Indeed, Hagee has been one of the greatest supporters of Israel and Jewish causes in the evangelical community.   McCain’s hasty decision to discard Hagee was seen by many evangelicals, even those who are not fans of Hagee, as a betrayal.   Although it was done in the context of Sen. Barack Obama’s Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, it was a moment that seemed to pander to the media’s ignorance and hostility toward religion in general. Many evangelicals saw it as grossly unfair.   Even McCain’s friend, Jewish independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman said he would still speak at a Hagee gathering. Ed Koch, the former New York mayor and leading Jewish Democrat, scolded McCain for the decision.   “It has become fashionable among liberals, including Jews, to ridicule and denounce Hagee and other fundamentalists,” Koch wrote in a Newsmax.com column. “I do not. I appreciate their support of the state of Israel.”   But Hagee and Graham are not the only evangelical leaders to be rebuffed by McCain. Press reports indicate McCain has turned away olive branch invitations from the influential Dr. James Dobson for the senator to visit him at his headquarters in Colorado Springs.   The theory behind the McCain campaign’s strategy to ignore evangelicals is that they have nowhere else to go, that Obama is too liberal, and they’ll vote against him come November.   But McCain’s team is missing the fact that the vacuum created by the GOP’s divorce from them is being filled by the Democrats.   Both Clinton and Obama have been quietly courting evangelicals, the former in private meetings last year and the later with open, religious language.   Aside from Carter’s winning outreach to born again voters in 1976, this is a new phenomenon among Democrat candidates. New polling shows younger evangelicals have different views about the poor, the environment and societal attitudes toward gays. Public relations expert and evangelical leader Mark DeMoss suggests that Obama could win fully 40 percent of the evangelical vote this November. By my calculations that figure is low.   McCain’s decision not to meet with Graham will likely provoke outrage. And the campaign will likely back down. Graham is no Hagee or Dobson. They will say it was all a mistake and blame it on staff or a “misunderstanding.” But in the process they have revealed their mind-set. Their decision to ignore the leaders of America’s 80 million born-again voters represents a stunning, high wire act for a Republican presidential candidate.   By repudiating evangelical Christians he scrambles the traditional loyalties. It may win him some pro-choice women voters, demoralized by Clinton’s loss to Obama.   And it may win him a few months more of favorable media attention.   But marginalizing a voting bloc that represents 42 percent of the nation is more likely a desperate decision, revealing a campaign that is unsure of itself, fears defeat and has decided to roll the dice.   Doug Wead is a presidential historian and New York Times bestselling author of “All the Presidents’ Children.” He served as special assistant to the President in Bush, Sr. White House and was an informal advisor to George W. Bush leading up to his election in 2000.                       © 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved. Print Page  |  Forward Page  |  E-mail Us Related Links: Replace Antibiotics with Probiotics for Total Health Ronald Reagan’s Greatest Laughs — FREE Offer. What Kept My Father Alive and Changed My Life