Obama and Saddleback Church.... Help me here, folks

I read some of the transcripts from the Saddleback questions and answers Saturday night and I cut/pasted, cleaned up, removed the transcription numbers, etc.....because I wanted to see what you think. Obama's quotes are in CAPS.

"WHAT I CAN DO IS SAY ARE THERE WAYS THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES SO THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE REDUCING THE SENSE THAT WOMEN ARE SEEKING OUT ABORTIONS."

Z: How do you reduce a "sense"? Is it not better to try to reduce abortions? Something about that is so typical of what a friend said after reading DREAMS FROM MY FATHER..you're never quite sure what he means. "reducing the sense"?

This was curious, too: "THAT FOR A GAY PARTNERS TO WANT TO VISIT EACH OTHER IN THE HOSPITAL FOR THE STATE TO SAY YOU KNOW WHAT THAT'S ALL RIGHT, I DON'T THINK IN ANY WAY INHIBITS MY CORE BELIEFS ABOUT WHAT MARRIAGE ARE. I THINK MY FAITH IS STRONG ENOUGH AND MY MARRIAGE IS STRONG ENOUGH THAT I CAN AFFORD THOSE CIVIL RIGHTS TO OTHERS EVEN IF I HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE OR A DIFFERENT VIEW."

Z: From what my gay friends tell me, any gay couple can see a lawyer and settle issues like hospital visitation before it happens, so that's a moot point. His argument that his 'marriage is strong' is the number one leftist belief that straights are threatened in some way by the specter of gay marriage. That's so insulting and desperate.

Regarding EVIL, he said "NOW, THE ONE THINK THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT IS FOR US TO HAVE SOME HUMILITY IN HOW WE APPROACH THE ISSUE OF CON FRONTING EVIL, BUT YOU KNOW A LOT OF EVIL HAS BEEN PERPETRATED BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT WE WERE TRYING TO CONFRONT EVIL. Q. IN THE NAME OF GOOD? A. INTO THE NAME OF GOOD. AND I THINK ONE THING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT IS HAVING SOME HUMILITY IN RECOGNIZING THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE WE THINK OUR INTENTIONS ARE GOOD DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING GOOD."

Z: Use humility in confronting EVIL? WHAT?

"I WOULD NOT NOMINATE JUSTICE SCALIA ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DOUBT ABOUT HIS INTELLECTUAL BRILLIANCE BECAUSE HE AND I JUST DISAGREE,"

Z: Maybe I'm being too hard on him here, and we all know whichever side wins appoints judges who've shown a slant in one or the other direction, but to come out and say I DISAGREE SO HE CAN'T SERVE? just smacks of something funny to come out and say it like that.

LIKE IN KATRINA. IF I TOOK PEOPLE TO KATRINA AND I WANTED TO HIRE SOME PEOPLE TO DO RELIEF, I WOULD STILL -- IF I TOOK FEDERAL MONEY TO HELP IN THAT RELIEF I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SAY, I ONLY WANT PEOPLE TO BELIEVE LIKE WE DO? A. IT'S ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS. I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD NOT BE ADVANTAGED OR DISADVANTAGED WHEN IT COMES TO GETTING FEDERAL FUNDS BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS. THEY JUST WANT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD BUT WHAT WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE OF IS THAT AS A GENERAL PRINCIPAL WE'RE NOT USING FEDERAL FUNDING TO DISCRIMINATED BUT THAT IS ONLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE NARROW PROGRAM THAT IS BEING FUNDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THAT DOES NOT AFFECT ANY OF THE OTHER MINISTRIES THAT ARE TAKING PLACE.

Z: SO, no faith-based institutions can get government help because Catholic organizations only hire Catholics, or Jews only hire Jews? Most religious groups DO only work with those interested in that particular cause; most churches are full of Christians, most synagogues doing good are only full of Jews......that's natural. SO, he's saying that they shouldn't be advantaged or disadvantaged ...sounds great, except they can't be advantaged if they receive federal money. Oops. That DOES 'affect....ministries.." doesn't it? Don't the red and purple words contradict his point?

I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A HARD AND FAST LINE AT WHICH YOU SAY, OKAY, WE ARE GOING IN. I THINK IT IS ALWAYS A JUDGMENT CALL. I THINK THAT THE BASIC PRINCIPLE HAS TO BE THAT IF WE HAVE IT WITHIN OUR POWER TO PREVENT MASS KILLING AND GENOCIDE AND WE CAN WORK IN CONCERT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO PREVENT IT THEN WE SHOULD ACT. NOW, WE HAVE TO DO SO -- WE HAVE TO DO SO I THINK THAT INTERNATIONAL COMPONENT IS VERY CRITICAL. WE'RE NOT -- WE MAY NOT GET 100 PERCENT AGREEMENT, BUT -- Q -- GO TO THE WAR WITHOUT APPROVAL? A YES, BUT I THINK YOU TAKE AN EXAMPLE LIKE BOSNIA WHEN WE WENT IN AND UNDOUBTEDLY SAVED LIVES. WE DID NOT HAVE YOU UN APPROVAL BUT THERE WAS A STRONG INTERNATIONAL CASE THAT HAD BEEN MADE THAT ETHNIC CLEANSING WAS TAKING PLACE. AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN WE HAVE, WITHIN OUR POWER, WE SHOULD -- YOU KNOW WE SHOULD TAKE ACTION.

Z: Wouldn't he consider 300,000 dead Kurds at Saddam's hands "ethnic cleansing"? Are those massacres less important to him than Bosnia? And why, if, like he said, it was "within our power to prevent MASS KILLING AND GENOCIDE" shouldn't we go in even if the internatinoal component was 'critical'?

WE'RE TRADING PARTNERS UNFORTUNATELY THEY ARE NOW LENDERS TO US BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN TAKING CARE OF OUR ECONOMY THE WAY WE NEED TO BE. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WANT TO SEE MILITARY CONFLICT WITH CHINA SO WE WANT TO MANAGE THIS RELATIONSHIP AND MOVE THEM INTO THE WORLD COMMUNITY AS A FULL PARTNER BUT WE CAN'T PURCHASE THAT BY IGNORING THE VERY REAL PERSECUTIONS THAT ARE TAKING PLACE..

Z: But, he wants to tax OUR CORPORATIONS, OUR MANUFACTURERS, OUR BUSINESSES more HERE in America. How then, can our companies compete against China? That's "taking care of our economy in the way we need to be?" that's puzzling.

WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO CONSIDER AND EVEN COMMIT TO DOING SOME KIND OF EMERGENCY PLAN FOR OTHER FANS LIKE PRESIDENT BUSH DID WITH AIDS ALMOST A PRESIDENT'S EMERGENCY PLAN FOR ORPHANS TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE? A I CHEATED A LITTLE BIT. I ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THIS IDEA AHEAD OF TIME AND I THINK IT IS A -- I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA.

Z: He "cheated a little bit..." he "Actually looked at this idea ahead of time.." Does that mean he had the questions? Or is he implying that this is the only one subject he actually boned up on before the show? Either one is suspect, in my opinion. Nobody's brought that up in the media, as far as I can tell. And, as usual, if a liberal saw this post, they'd just write it off as "Conservative nonsense" and people actually believe truth is nonsense if it's presented by FOX or a blog.

Meanwhile, I'm hearing that the left is saying McCain heard some of Obama's questions and answers....that he answered too quickly. That's totally untrue and, in fact, Obama got there earlier so he was told one MORE question, the adoption one, than McCain was told beforehand. Here's the truth about who knew what, but it doesn't make the media.

"OBAMA MUST WIN" is the call of the media, Andrea Mitchell, etc. There's something so wrong in America today and we need to start to come up with ways to try to fix her. Now.

z