Does Paul LePage Really Want to be Governor?

Here's a deal: Just as soon as MANNING AND THE DEMS apologize (for ruining Maine), then LePage can aplogize for saying something they didn't like. I think they need to apologize much more than he does.

The problem is, Jim, that Manning is not running for governor; Paul is. If Paul does not apologize, it hurts his chances; if Manning does not apologize, it remains a Mexican standoff, and it hurts Paul's chances.

Manning is in a win-win situation here. People now know who he is, and he at the end of the season, if there is no apology, Manning ends up with bragging rights because Paul LePage took a beating at the polls due to his refusal to apologize.

Of course, Manning has nothing to apologize for, He did not say or write - as LePage continues to claim - that LePage is not qualified to be governor because LePage is French Catholic.

LePage could provide proof to support his claims, of course, but despite repeatedly being asked to do so, he hasn't.

This isn't a public relations problem. This is an indication of the character of the GOP candidate.

No, Gerald, Manning called LePage a creationist, which was a clear slam against LePage's religion. What else could it have been?

And LePage showed where Manning called him a creationist.

Game, set and match.

"You can't be serious! You have GOT to be kidding me!"

lol.

Calling someone a creationist is not a slam. It is a description, the same way "fundamentalist,"
"premillenialist," or "Christian" are descriptions.

I am a creationist, and I don't see it as a slam against me or my religion.

I'm at a loss to figure out how you have decided it is a slam.

He use the word "creationist" as a bad thing.

Look, folks who hate Christians think that to call someone a "creationist" is to condemn them.

It is just that tin ear to such derogatory usage that makes people like Gerald deaf to the slur.

I said that Manning and the Dems (led by their bandleader Mitchell) should apologize for RUINING MOST OF MAINE OVER THE LAST FORTY YEARS. Not for something they said last week or two days ago. Seriously..........they owe us all a big apolgy. But it's harder to swallow your pride and apologize than it is to just frantically look around, point at the first thing you see, and (let's just say it happens to be the other candidate's religious beliefs) start yellnig, "CREATIONIST! CREATIONIST! CHRISTIAN RIGHT WINGER! CHRISTIAN RIGHT WINGER!" We get that. It's hard to live with what they've been.. But they still need to apologize for sinking Maine.
Then maybe Paul can say sorry too.
Naah, he has nothing to apologize for.

Folks who hate Christians think that to call someone a "Christian" is to condemn them. But my point is that calling me what I am is not an insult, no matter what the caller thinks of it.

Am I the only Christian who does not believe that "creationist" is a bad thing? I don't think so.

I most assuredly would not try to pretend that I do not believe am not one in order to make a secularist feel better about me. I am concerned about a Christian who would do so.

I'm with Michelle. I'm a card-carrying member of the Creationist Club. Believe in it, and have done a bit of it myself... got a bunch of kids to prove it.

GERALD, Master Manning and their brood of Destructionists, with Libby as their standard bearer, are the ones what should be called out for their belief in abortion and the other sordid practices of Destructionism. Why do we let that stuff get taught in schools?

How are we defining creationist? If I believe man is created by God am I creationist? What if I am skeptical about, don't care about, or don't take literally the formation of life on Earth as described in the Book of Genesis - but I believe man is created by God. Am I a creationist?

Thank you.
skf

Editor,

* Creation/Evolution Continuum

Here's a very useful outline of the continuum of beliefs in the creationism-evolution spectrum. It's a good exercise for all AMG readers to read it and place themselves within it. (Mark me down as an "Agnostic Evolutionist".)

Also interesting is this Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute outlining their own Creationist strategy in the culture war.

According to the twisted logic here, if Arden Manning were to call me a technologist, I’d have license to say that he called me an Asian (pronounced: Āz’-jern) computer geek.

Stretching it a little further – if Manning were to acknowledge my son’s penchant for running, I could claim that he referred to him as racist. And if he compared my wife’s singing to that of Diana Ross, I could say that he called her a White Supremacist.

What a fun game for the kids to play in the car!

There is are an amazing amount of people here in Maine who really don't question where we we came from ... creationism or evolution.. or intelligent design.... ask them they just don't think about it at all.So maybe the real debate should focus on how we strengthen our economy lower taxes and provide jobs and health care .

Right, johnw.

But those who do care about the issue hold vastly different views.

Take these two for example:

Because the apes don't want to be falsely associated with US?

Again though, I take exception to the term "handler" because it makes it sound like somebody is being changed and warped into something they aren't... ie "handled"... which pollutes who they are and perverts it into some kind of political monster.

A quality communications expert/staffer doesn't have to change the candidate at all... but the key here is PREPARATION. A candidate knowing the score, knowing what to expect when he walks into a situation, and being prepared to give the best possible answer - THAT IS STILL how the candidate actually feels.

There's nothing wrong or sinister about that.

I agree Gagnon, I despise the use of the word "handler."

Am I the only Christian who does not believe that "creationist" is a bad thing? I don't think so.

Depends on the context. If someone is saying "Don't vote for Michelle because she is a creationist" then it shows bigotry for you religious beliefs. That's different than merely saying in an impartial way: "Michelle is a creationist."

For example, you could say "Barak Obama is a black president" and that would be merely an objective statement of fact. But to say: "Barak Obama shouldn't be president because he is black," then that would clearly be a racist statement.

So, when Manning says: "You shouldn't vote for LePage because he is a creationist," then Manning is attacking LePage's religious beliefs, and saying those disqualify him for that office.

I don't know much about the handler thing. Some folks have them and it helps; some have them and they hurt. What I DO know is that the leftists seem awfully, awfully intent on making sure they don't have to account for their ruinous way they've run Maine for forty years. And they will do anything to try to "take people's eye off the ball", include turn to things that they'll say about any one who opposes them. ANYTHING to avoid having to justify what they've done. My two year old son does that too........literally. When being admonished, he will point at the first object he can lay eyes on and excitedly say, "Mommy!" (or "Daddy"). As in, "if I can just get you to think about THAT, we don't have to continue with this unpleasant disciplining thing...."
HE has an excuse..............shouldn't Dems be a bit too old to be doing the same??

Knowing that -- LePage needs to stick to the issues that work and not give them ammunition which allows them to change the subject.

politicator.maineobserver.net
Maine political news, analysis and commentary
Analysis | Politics | State | Wednesday, July 28th, 2010, 1:56 pm
Could Paul LePage please define “creationism”?

By Mario Carmine Moretto

[T]he Hulk-sized pink elephant in the room is that LePage seemed not to know what he’s was being asked. He told Sharon that he “tried” being a creationist but that it didn’t work. The examples he gives of how he tried consist of detailing his futile attempts to part, then walk on, water. So now the Republican candidate for governor has confused “French Catholic” with “creationist,” and “creationist” with “miracle-worker.”

http://politicator.maineobserver.net/2010/07/28/could-paul-lepage-please...

Blah blah, yesterday's non-issue blathered by a would-be member of the chattering class.

With all due respect, I disagree. If they say, "Don't vote for Michelle because she is a creationist", they a) have a different faith than I do; b) are wrong; but c) should be, according to our Constitution, allowed to believe and say that, if that's what they believe.

Americans are entirely within their rights to not vote for me for any reason they wish.

I, personally, believe that not voting for me because I am Mexican, or a woman, or a Mexican woman, or have grey hair, or any other reason is a right which cannot be taken away.

I also believe that they are entirely within their rights to state their reason for not voting for me. If it is a bigoted reason, so be it. It will color the way I think of them, but it is still their right to do so, and trying to legislate such statements is stupid, pointless, and unconstitutional.

I think conservatives would do better to let progressives play their victim game and continue on the high road: addressing issues and promoting adherence to the Constitution.

If it is a bigoted reason, so be it.

But shouldn't we use scorn to guide the collective morality?

What is "the collective morality," pray tell?

Yeah I wonder what he means by "collective morality" is as well.

Social mores.

We should have some.

By “collective morality,” I thought you meant the code of behavior of The Borg.