Recession In Rural Areas May Help Obama

Economic Woes For Farmers Could Make Them Rethink Republican Ties

(AP)  The folks in this picturesque mountain community with red barns and Amish buggies have been voting overwhelmingly Republican in national elections for decades.

But tough economic times here in Mifflin County and in rural areas all around the country have created possible openings for Democrat Barack Obama.

President Bush won nearly 70 percent of the county's vote in both 2000 and 2004, but the standard of living here has declined steadily during his administration.

The farm equipment factory that employed 500 workers here is closing. So is the milk plant. Farmers are facing skyrocketing feed and fertilizer costs, and gas prices are squeezing household budgets of those who now have to drive elsewhere for work.

Mifflin is one of nearly 150 rural counties where the median household income has dropped by more than 10 percent since 1999, more than three times the national decline, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

That could make a difference in traditionally Republican rural areas come November. In Ohio in 2004, for example, John Kerry might have won the state and the presidency had he won just 45 percent of the rural vote. As it was, Mr. Bush carried Ohio's rural voters by an almost 2-to-1 margin, according to exit polls.

Rural voters accounted for more than 10 percent of the total vote in all but three of 12 closely contested battleground states in 2004, and more than 20 percent in four of them - Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Wisconsin - according to exit polls. In all but two of the states, Mr. Bush won the small-town vote overwhelmingly.

Nationally, Bush won almost 60 percent of the rural vote, but Republican John McCain doesn't appear to be doing as well. In an AP-Yahoo News Poll in June, rural voters favored McCain over Obama 40 percent to 34 percent. About 34 percent of rural voters said McCain "shares my values," compared to 27 percent who said Obama did.

Recognizing an opportunity, Obama has opened more offices in rural areas than any other Democratic presidential candidate in years, pushing a message focused on job creation. Neighborhood campaign teams have been going door to door talking about Obama and his economic policies. In Ohio, his campaign recently announced a "Barns for Obama" effort, in which farmers are encouraged to paint their barn with Obama's logo.

Economy is hardly the only issue, here as elsewhere.

Religion and race are still powerful forces in rural America, and whether Obama can gain ground in traditional rural safe havens for Republicans could hinge on whether voters focus more on economic issues or cultural values when they go to the polls. Likability is also likely to be a strong factor.

Republican Barbara Dettloff, 72, a retired bartender from Racine, Ohio, an Appalachian river town with about 750 people, voted for Bush in 2004 and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in this year's Republican primary. She's voting for Obama in November because "I think he's nice and I think he's sincere in what he says."

But, she added, "I'm probably the only person in this town that does."

Indeed, many of her friends have told her they're either not voting for Obama or are staying home. "They just won't vote for him because he's black," Dettloff said.

Some other rural voters like Carol Fuller, 45, of Lewistown, blame the Republican Party for their economic troubles but aren't ready to switch to a Democrat like Obama.

At the Belleville auction house on a recent day, Fuller described the future as "bleak." In part because of gas prices, she said she and her husband are living month to month on the farm where they raise poultry and cattle.

She accused the Republican Party of price gouging at the pump, mismanaging the Iraq war and failing to address health care. She said she would have voted for Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton because she thought a woman could clean up Washington, but, as for Obama, "I just don't like him." She plans to vote for McCain.

Another farmer, Robert Thompson, 58, a Democrat and retired state worker from Millheim who raises cattle and hogs, said he still hasn't gotten over Obama's comments at a private San Francisco fundraiser that small-town voters in Pennsylvania are bitter and "cling to guns or religion." He said he's considering not voting for president because he doesn't like McCain either.

If many rural voters follow the route Thompson is considering, it could hurt McCain in critical swing states, said Terry Madonna, a pollster and professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster.

"McCain will have problems getting a high turnout among those voters unless he finds some way to identify with them, some way to make them think that A, he's not connected to Bush and B, his economic plan is superior to Obama's," Madonna said.

He also needs to turn the conversation away from the economy, Madonna said, but "it's tougher to do that when times are bad."

Paul Lindsay, a McCain spokesman, said long-standing relationships Republicans have established in rural areas will pay off for McCain.

"John McCain continues to hear the concerns of rural families. ... That's why he has made every effort to engage these voters on his plans to create jobs and provide relief for working families," Lindsay said.

Says Dan Leistikow, an Obama spokesman: "We're getting a great response in rural communities that have been ignored by Washington and left behind in the Bush economy."

The AP analysis of median household income was based on 2005 estimates, the latest available from the Census Bureau. In some of the rural counties heavily dependent on farming, income may well have rebounded since then as rising soybean and corn prices have helped offset feed and fertilizer costs.

And not all rural counties are hurting. The median household income improved during the Bush administration in many rural counties near metropolitan areas.

But for counties like Mifflin, the recent economic decline is just a continuation of a trend that's lasted decades. Some of the county's economic woes date to 1972 when rains from Hurricane Agnes flooded parts of the area, including a profitable rayon fiber plant that was a major employer.

Tara Davidson, 36, a single mother and hair dresser from nearby Unionville, said she worries about what opportunities will be available for her 15-year-old son, who is already working to help out with their expenses. But she's not sure she'll even vote in November.

"I'm considering it, but I don't want any of them," Davidson said. "What if they get in there and make it worse?"

[mycommentspg]

If the people in these communities take the time to study all the real issues and the candidates, the choice in November will be easy. A leader with the experience to get the job done is the only choice. http://mycommentspage.blogspot.com/

[omega39-2009]

President Bush won nearly 70 percent of the county''s vote in both 2000 and 2004, but the standard of living here has declined steadily during his administration.

What do you know, karma works.

[starleo146]

The Plot Against Liberal America

By Thomas Frank, The New Statesman. Posted August 18, 2008.

Conservatives don''t want to debate, they want to destroy their opposition.

Also in Democracy and Elections

Ohio''s Election Stolen Again? State May Face 600K Voter Purge in Coming Weeks

Voting Machines Can Never Be Trusted, Says GOP Computer Security Expert








The most cherished dream of conservative Washington is that liberalism can somehow be defeated, finally and irreversibly, in the way that armies are beaten and pests are exterminated. Electoral victories by Republicans are just part of the story. The larger vision is of a future in which liberalism is physically barred from the control room -- of an "end of history" in which taxes and onerous regulation will never be allowed to threaten the fortunes private individuals make for themselves. This is the longing behind the former White House aide Karl Rove''s talk of "permanent majority" and, 20 years previously, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff''s declaration to the Republican convention that it''s "the job of all revolutions to make permanent their gains

[starleo146]

When I first moved to contemplate this peculiar utopian vision, I was struck by its apparent futility. What I did not understand was that beating liberal ideas was not the goal. The Washington conservatives aim to make liberalism irrelevant not by debating, but by erasing it. Building a majority coalition has always been a part of the program, and conservatives have enjoyed remarkable success at it for more than 30 years. But winning elections was not a bid for permanence by itself. It was only a means.

The end was capturing the state, and using it to destroy liberalism as a practical alternative. The pattern was set by Margaret Thatcher, who used state power of the heaviest-handed sort to implant permanently the anti-state ideology.

[starleo146]

"Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul," she said, echoing Stalin. In the 34 years before she became prime minister, Britain rode a see-saw of nationalization, privatization and renationalization; Thatcher set out to end the game for good. Her plan for privatising council housing was designed not only to enthrone the market, but to encourage an ownership mentality and "change the soul" of an entire class of voters. When she sold off nationally owned industries, she took steps to ensure that workers received shares at below-market rates, leading hopefully to the same soul transformation. Her brutal suppression of the miners'' strike in 1984 showed what now awaited those who resisted the new order. As a Business Week reporter summarized it in 1987: "She sees her mission as nothing less than eradicating Labour Party socialism as a political alternative."

[starleo146]

In their own pursuit of the free-market utopia, America''s right-wingers did not have as far to travel as their British cousins, and they have never needed to use their state power so ruthlessly. But the pattern is the same: scatter the left''s constituencies, hack open the liberal state and reward friendly businesses with the loot.

Grover Norquist, one of the most influential conservatives in Washington and the "field marshal of the Bush plan," according to the Nation magazine, has been most blunt about using the power of the state "to crush the structures of the left." He has outlined the plan countless times in countless venues: the liberal movement is supported by a number of "pillars," each of which can be toppled by conservatives when in power. Among Norquist''s suggestions has been the undermining of defense lawyers -- who in the US give millions of dollars to liberal causes -- with measures "potentially costing [them] billions of dollars of lost income." Conservatives could also "crush labour unions as a political entity" by forcing unions to get annual written approval from every member before spending union funds on political activities. His coup de grace is that the Democratic Party in its entirety would become "a dead man walking" with the privatization of social security.

[starleo146]

Much of this program has already been accomplished, if not on the precise terms Norquist suggested. The shimmering dream of privatizing social security, though, remains the great unreachable right-wing prize, and the right persists in the campaign, regardless of the measure''s unpopularity or the number of political careers it costs. President Bush announced privatisation to be his top priority on the day after his re-election in 2004, although he had not emphasized this issue during the campaign. He proceeded to chase it deep into the land of political unpopularity, a region from which he never really returned.

[omega39-2009]

Posted by starleo14672

I don''t believe Bush and Rove will be getting their lasting Republican majority any time soon. Between the changing demographics and younger generation bearing the brunt of poor fiscal policy, the Republican party most likely peaked in 2004 and is heading into steady decline.

[starleo146]

He did this because the potential rewards of privatizing social security justify any political cost. At one stroke, it would both de-fund the operations of government and utterly reconfigure the way Americans interact with the state. It would be irreversible, too; the "transition costs" in any scheme to convert social security are so vast that no country can consider incurring them twice. Once the deal has been done and the trillions of dollars that pass through social security have been diverted from the US Treasury to stocks in private companies, the effects would be locked in for good. First, there would be an immediate flood of money into Wall Street; second, there would be an equivalent flow of money out of government accounts, immediately propelling the federal deficit up into the stratosphere and de-funding a huge part of the federal activity.

[starleo146]

The overall effect for the nation''s politics would be to elevate for ever the rationale of the financial markets over such vague liberalisms as "the common good" and "the public interest." The practical results of such a titanic redirection of the state are easy to predict, given the persistent political demands of Wall Street: low wage growth, even weaker labour organisations, a free hand for management in downsizing, in polluting, and so on.

The longing for permanent victory over liberalism is not unique to the west. In country after country, business elites have come up with ingenious ways to limit the public''s political choices. One of the most effective of these has been massive public debt. Naomi Klein has pointed out, in case after case, that the burden of debt has forced democratic countries to accept a laissez-faire system that they find deeply distasteful. Regardless of who borrowed the money, these debts must be repaid -- and repaying them, in turn, means that a nation must agree to restructure its economy the way bankers bid: by deregulating, privatizing and cutting spending.

[starleo146]

Republicans have ridden to power again and again promising balanced budgets -- government debt was "mortgaging our future," Ronald Reagan admonished in his inaugural address -- but once in office they proceed, with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases, to inflate the federal deficit to levels far beyond those reached by their supposedly open-handed liberal rivals. The formal justification is one of the all-time great hoaxes. By cutting taxes, it is said, you will unleash such economic growth that federal revenues will actually increase, so all the additional government spending will be paid for.

[starleo146]

Even the theory''s proponents don''t really believe it. David Stockman, the libertarian budget director of the first Reagan administration, did the maths in 1980 and realised it would not rescue the government; it would wreck the government. This is the point where most people would walk away. Instead, Stockman decided it had medicinal value. He realized that with their government brought to the brink of fiscal collapse, the liberals would either have to acquiesce in the reconfiguration of the state or else see the country destroyed. Stockman was candid about this: the left would "have to dismantle [the government''s] bloated, wasteful, and unjust spending enterprises -- or risk national ruin."

[obama8years]

These numbers demonstrate the failure of the Democrats to lead Congress. They came into power promising results and a new era of bipartisanship. Instead, they delivered incompetence and increased partisan bickering, and higher gas prices.

While many are quick to predict increased Democrat majorities in both Houses of Congress, it%u2019s clear that the American people are rejecting the so-called leadership of elected Democrats.

[jlagat]

"Nationally, Bush won almost 60 percent of the rural vote..."

And they got what they deserved.

[omega39-2009]

and repaying them, in turn, means that a nation must agree to restructure its economy the way bankers bid: by deregulating, privatizing and cutting spending.

Posted by starleo14672

Or, an angry mob could hang those bankers from telephone poles. This scenario or similar ones have been replayed throughout history.

[starleo146]

his is government-by-sabotage: deficits were a way to smash a liberal state. The Reagan deficits did precisely this. When Reagan took over in 1981, he inherited an annual deficit of $59bn and a national debt of $914bn; by the time he and his successor George Bush had finished their work, they had quintupled the deficit and pumped the debt up to more than $3trn. Bill Clinton called the deficit "Stockman''s Revenge" -- and it dominated all other topics within his administration''s economic teams. With the chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan himself speaking of "financial catastrophe" unless steps were taken to control Reagan''s deficit, Clinton was soon a convert. He got tough with the federal workforce.

[omega39-2009]

These numbers demonstrate the failure of the Democrats to lead Congress. They came into power promising results and a new era of bipartisanship. Instead, they delivered incompetence and increased partisan bickering, and higher gas prices.

While many are quick to predict increased Democrat majorities in both Houses of Congress, it%u2019s clear that the American people are rejecting the so-called leadership of elected Democrats.


Posted by obama8years

Faith based reality????????

[starleo146]

So-called virtues

George W Bush proceeded to plunge the budget into deficit again. Indeed, after seeing how the Reagan deficit had forced Clinton''s hand, it would have been foolish for a conservative not to spend his way back into the hole as rapidly as possible. "It''s perfectly fine for them to waste money," says Robert Reich, a former labour secretary to Bill Clinton, summarizing the conservative viewpoint. "If the public thinks government is wasteful, that''s fine. That reduces public faith in government, which is precisely what the Republicans want."

[obama8years]

66% of American now believe we should drill for oil in the US (including off shore and in Anwar). Nancy Pelosi, afraid that the republicans would force a vote on drilling and the dems might have some renegades going off the reservation and actually voting for drilling in Anwar. So Nancy has tabled discussion on an energy bill. The dem leadership is afraid that if the American public really learns that they don%u2019t want to work on energy independence, they will lose big time in the fall.

Come on dems run on who you really are not who you want the masses to believe you are.

[starleo146]

In 1964, the political theorist James Burnham diagnosed liberalism as "the ideology of western suicide." What Burnham meant by this was that liberalism''s so-called virtues -- its openness and its insistence on equal rights for everyone -- made it vulnerable to any party that refuses to play by the rules. The "suicide" that all of this was meant to describe was liberalism''s inevitable destruction at the hands of communism, a movement in whose ranks Burnham had once marched himself. But his theory seems more accurately to describe the stratagems of its fans on the American right. And the correct term for the disasters that have disabled the liberal state is not suicide, but vandalism. Loot the Treasury, dynamite the dam, take a crowbar to the monument and throw a wrench into the gears. Slam the locomotive into reverse, toss something heavy on the throttle, and jump for it.

[starleo146]

Mainstream American political commentary customarily assumes that the two political parties do whatever they do as mirror images of each other; that if one is guilty of some misstep, the other is equally culpable. But there is no symmetry. Liberalism, as we know it, arose out of a compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests. It depends on the efficient functioning of certain organs of the state; it does not call for all-out war on private industry.

Conservatism, on the other hand, speaks not of compromise, but of removing its adversaries from the field altogether. While no one dreams of sawing off those branches of the state that protect conservatism''s constituents -- the military, the police, legal privileges granted to corporations -- conservatives openly fantasize about doing away with the bits of "big government" that serve liberal ends. While de-funding the left is the north star of the conservative project, there is no comparable campaign to "de-fund the right"; indeed, it would be difficult to imagine one.

[starleo146]

"Over the past 30 years, American politics has become more money-centered at exactly the same time that American society has grown more unequal," the political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have written. The resources and organizational heft of the well-off and hyper-conservative have exploded. But the organizational resources of middle-income Americans ... have atrophied. The resulting inequality has greatly benefited the Republican Party while drawing it closer to its most affluent and extreme supporters."

In this sense, conservative Washington is a botch that keeps on working, constructing an imbalance that will tilt our politics rightward for years, a plutocracy that will stand, regardless of who wins the next few elections. And as American inequality widens, the clout of money will only grow more powerful.

[obama8years]

There is shale oil in the Rockies. Oil in Alaska. Oil of both the east and west coasts. And oil in the eastern gulf. ALL off limits.

Canada has mobile refineries that could be set up on an abandoned U.S. military base. Think it will happen?

No new nuclear. New opposition to solar. No Hydro. And Ted Kennedy NIMBY restrictions on ALL new wind projects.

As to Iraq. All the Democrats have to do is not have a funding bill. No bill, can%u2019t be vetoed. Easy.

What about Social Security? Thwarted OUR proposal and replaced it with what? NOTHING.

What about all those judge appointments you refuse to let come to the floor?

When the agenda on the floor is controlled by an obstinate and cynical group like the current leadership, the opposition party has few options available.

[starleo146]

As I write this, the lobbyist-fuelled conservative boom of the past ten years is being supplanted by a distinct conservative bust: like the real-estate speculators who are dumping properties all over the country, conservative senators and representatives are heading for the revolving door in record numbers.
Plutocracy

The Democrats who have taken their place are an improvement, certainly, but for the party''s more entrepreneurial leaders electoral success in 2006 was merely an opportunity to accelerate their own courtship of Washington''s lobbyists, think-tanks and pressure groups staked out on K Street. Democratic leaders have proved themselves the Republicans'' equals in circumvention of campaign finance laws.

[gop_forever]

My preacher told us yeasterday in church that Obama was a space alien sent here to eat christians and take away our freedoms.

[starleo146]

Throwing the rascals out is no longer enough. The problem is structural; it is inscribed on the map; it glows from the illuminated logos on the contractors'' office buildings; it is built into the systems of governance themselves. A friend of mine summarized this concisely as we were lunching in one of those restaurants where the suits and the soldiers get together. Sweeping his hand so as to take in our fellow diners and all the contractors'' offices beyond, he said, "So you think all of this is just going to go away if Obama gets in?" This whole economy, all these profits?

He''s right, of course; maybe even righter than he realized. It would be nice if electing Democrats was all that was required to resuscitate the America that the right flattened, but it will take far more than that. A century ago, an epidemic of public theft persisted, despite a long string of reformers in the White House, Republicans and Democrats, each promising to clean the place up. Nothing worked, and for this simple reason: democracy cannot work when wealth is distributed as lopsidedly as theirs was-and as ours is. The inevitable consequence of plutocracy, then and now, is bought government.

[broadwayphi]

Living in a rural area, I am interested to see if my fellow hicks will open wide for more GOP-regurgitated trickle down or will finally throw off the yoke and vote in a guy with a few ideas -- other than how to make the rich richer.

[obama8years]

Geee whizz it sounds like those Republics, who ever they are, are really in trouble. Meanwhile the Dumocrats led by their messiah, promise to save us from ourselves, and teach us a foreign language at the same time.

[omega39-2009]

Posted by obama8years

But, but, Republicans held Congress and the presidency for 6 years and none of your so called pressing issues were acted on. Nope, it was six years of non binding resolutions declaring marriage should be between a man and a woman and hollow declarations of supporting the troops.

[broadwayphi]

McCain is now adopting a "supply side" (IE, Trickle Down) economic model fo his campaign.

Re-Bush regurgitates again.

Pathetic.

My friend.

[broadwayphi]

McCain now a supply-sider. You know: the folks who brought us deficits in the trillions and stagnant wages as the rich got richer?

Maverick, where have you gone?

Were you ever really here?

My friend?

[broadwayphi]

Long gone John. (AKA, Trickle Down Mac.)

He''s not our friend.

My friends.

[starleo146]

My preacher told us yeasterday in church that Obama was a space alien sent here to eat christians and take away our freedoms.

Posted by GOP_forever at 10:21 AM : Aug 18, 2008

Does your preacher wrap snakes around your neck and then tell you have faith they won''t hurt you.

[omega39-2009]

McCain is now adopting a "supply side" (IE, Trickle Down) economic model fo his campaign.

Posted by broadwayphi

How could the middle class possibly lose with McCain''s economic dream team? Lets see, there is Carly (I wrecked HP) Fiorina and Phil (you''re all a bunch of whiners) Gramm. Yep, I see nothing but good times ahead.

[broadwayphi]

Posted by mike071067 at 10:22 AM : Aug 18, 2008

Well, Mike, speaking as a hick from the sticks, my guns and religion seem perfectly safe with Obama at the helm.

Perhaps I can at least afford the ammo without the supply-siders picking my pockets to hand it over to the wealthy city-dwellers. eh?

[broadwayphi]

Please shut up now.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by mike071067 at 10:25 AM : Aug 18, 2008


Nice, solid, conservative sentiment, Mike.

Good one!

My friend.

[broadwayphi]

Posted by omega39 at 10:27 AM : Aug 18, 2008

Yeah!

QAnd Carly likes to spy on her employees.

We''re safe! Safe! Safe!

Thank God and the GOP!

We''re SAFE!!!!!!

[broadwayphi]

I feel safe.

Phil Gramm is in charge of my money and Carly Fiorina is looking out for my best interests.

By God, I feel SAFE.

I can''t be trusted with my own privacy.

I might start whining again, about food, rent, and lack of ammo for that gun I cling to.

By God, I''m voting for McCain.

What was I thinking?

Oops!

I was THINKING again.

Stop me.

My friend...

[broadwayphi]

Suppy Side John is back in the Saddleback again.

By God, he''s a war hero!

Screw that pay raise.

Screw that union.

Screw the freakin spotted owls.

I want a freakin war hero for president, no matter how decompensated.

McCain for president!

Don''t THINK!

VOTE!

MY FRIENDS!

[broadwayphi]

What''s that warm feeling?

Why, it''s G.O. Pee.

Trickling down again.

Thanks, John.

My friend.

[starleo146]

Posted by starleo14672

I don''''t believe Bush and Rove will be getting their lasting Republican majority any time soon. Between the changing demographics and younger generation bearing the brunt of poor fiscal policy, the Republican party most likely peaked in 2004 and is heading into steady decline.

Posted by omega39 at 10:10 AM : Aug 18, 2008

Thanks Omega39 this article," Plot Against Liberal America", was written by Thomas Frank ,I put it up here for discussion only, and your thoughts are in line with mine as you stated here, it is a interesting piece and the manipulation is unbelievable THANKS FOR THE COMMENT.

[realpatriot1]

mike71067,

By your reasoning *** Lugar & Tom Coburn are closet Che Guevaras who should be booted out of the GOP. Chuck Hagel, Jim Leach, General Jim Jones, and Colin Powell should also take a hike.

They just might.

Other than McCain-Feingold which McCain ignores and Joe Lieberman who finishes his sentences ala Nancy Reagan, what reaching has John done?

[starleo146]

Please shut up now.

Posted by mike071067 at 10:25 AM : Aug 18, 2008
+ report a

typical republipig so set in his way you cannot open his mind with a can opener, you are the one that needs to shut up, you, and you stupid talk this is a discussion forum, and if you don''t like it here, there are plenty of MCBush junk on here go on there.

[condumbism]

The Republicon Fascist Party has been lying to most of its dumbed down jinGOPig base for years. Iowa farmers for instance, mostly well educated, are done with the Republicon Fascist Party and will show it with their vote for Barack in November. Alabama Evanglicals, mostly uneducated, will continue to vote for the Republicon Fascist Party because their mentally ill lying preacher told them to while sitting on their fatasses in their hate filled pews.

[aldon61]

Please shut up now.

Posted by mike071067 at 10:25 AM : Aug 18, 2008
+ report a

An intellectual zombie; dead on message for the GOP!

[aldon61]

Evanglicals, mostly uneducated, will continue to vote for the Republicon Fascist Party because their mentally ill lying preacher told them to while sitting on their fatasses in their hate filled pews.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ConDumbism at 10:45 AM : Aug 18, 2008

Which will lose their tax exempt status if it is proven!

[lostcause09]

satan love mccain

[broadwayphi]

I feel safe.

Safe and warm.

And wet.

Not to worry. Just long gone John and his G.O. Pee.

Trickling down. Again.

My friend.

[omega39-2009]

Which will lose their tax exempt status if it is proven!

Posted by aldon61

That''s how it should be but I recall lots of Evangelical churches pushing Bush in 2004 and none lost their tax exempt status. The only case I recall of a church being threatened was here in California when the pastor spoke out against the Iraq war. It dismays me to see Obama want to continue breaking down the walls of separation by continuing to pour US tax dollars directly into places of worship.

[lostcause09]

mccain loves little boys