Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. He came across in the debate as presidential and as connecting with the American people. He did so much more than John McCain did. That’s all Obama needed. We might as well start playing “Hail to the Chief.”
I’m not glad, but there it is. I don’t see what can stop him. The Age of Obama is upon us.
40 comments ↓
Where’s your faith?
The economy traditionally gets blamed on the incumbent presidential party. Not fair, but true. McCain was in good shape until the crisis appeared.
Of course, Bush was supposed to have lost the last two elections, so their is still hope.
Dr. Veith, I agree with you. At this point, it appears to be an accomplished fact. The only possibility I can see is that the McCain campaign effectively exposes Obama as the very hard-left idealist that he truly is and makes even more clear to the American public the extent of his liberal agenda for all areas of life: public and private, as he himself alluded to last night during the debates.
What most bothers me is the prospect of Obama appointing Supreme Court justices.
I suspect though that if the economy does not significantly improve, we will see the Congress returned to a majority of Republicans and then we will have stale-mates and/or some check/balances.
I’m taking solace in the hope that between the bailout and the wars that Obama won’t have enough funding to start any new projects and that economic difficulties will preclude him raising any taxes, at least for my bracket. Plus, first black president. That’s cool.
I find some hope in the likelihood that our senate and house will then become strongly conservative based on a liberal president, if the pattern repeats. I do regret that I won’t be able to drive around with bumper stickers stating “He’s not MY president!” or “Don’t blame me. I voted for McCain.” Seriously though, conservatives were the silent majority in the last two elections. Don’t count out McCain.
Sen. McCain insists that he wants to protect the taxpayers, but at last night’s debate he advocated a $300 billion federal mortgage buy-out. In other words, if you buy more than you can afford and fall behind on your mortgage payments, then everyone who acted responsibly must bail you out. Is that just and right to the citizens? Is it helpful to the economy? Since March the federal government has spent or loaned $2 trillion to try to shore up the economy. A few trillion here, and a few trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money! And Sen. McCain says Sen. Obama is a big spender! He’s right about that, but how is he any better? Add to that his unreliability re judges (you know, he likes to “reach across the aisle”), his unreliability on illegal immigration (remember “shamnesty”?), and his advocacy of wars that can’t even begin to meet Christian just war criteria, and what’s the conscientious Christian citizen to do? (By the bye, that is a sincere question.)
Yeah, I don’t see the turnaround point in this election over the next month, unless — God forbid — bin Laden again tries to scare Americans into voting for the Democrat by attacking or threatening attack.
Of course, it’d be an uphill struggle for any Republican. Events were against McCain. But it seems to me that he’s run a remarkably tone-deaf campaign, changing “themes” every couple of months. Last night he was back to “experience.” Yeah, the theme that Hillary road to victory in the primaries — not.
I tend to agree with you Vieth, but I predict the presidency will last 4 years and end in disaster. With the United States in even worse shape than it is now. Hopefully then we will have a Conservative worth voting for, rather than trying to shore up the mess with quasi conservatives.
I’ve heard the McCain campaign committee has announced that, in addition to Michigan, they have decided to pull out of major cemeteries in the Midwest, essentially conceding them to the demonrat party.
A not surprising loss there. Cemeteries have rarely been bipartisan.
First the debate:
I noted that McCain used the “I” word alot and said he could fix social security “easy!” and would appoint a commission like the base closing commission to fix medicare, and buy all the home mortgates for another 300billion dollars. these two items are major. Apart from those two items, he really never went into any details, he just said “I know how to (fill in the blank). He did this consistently, again and again and again. at one point he said “I will answer the question asked (when obama obviously did NOT answer the specific question). Great. But then he gave a very vague answer that didnt really go to specifics except for his amazing comment about a medicare commission. HOW would that work? would we WANT an unelected commission that could force an up or down vote to dictate something this huge and important??!! and an accross the board freeze on the budget sounds good, but advantage obama: “scalpel not ax” .
summary: obama showed more substance in the debate.
Obama used the “we” word alot and obviously had thought through all of the issues mentioned in some good detail where he could go point 1, point 2…. indeed, in the past he has been criticized for being professorial (ie too detailed, not enough sound bites).
second:
Supreme court nominations. this is the ONLY thing I am hearing from conservatives these days….
Let´s look at this without emotion: if overturning roe vs wade by packing conservatives onto the courts is the stragegy it is a very BAD strategy! This would push abortion policy to the state level. every state would become a battleground on the issue. Nothing would really be resolved. second the only REAL way to outlaw abortion would be a constitutional amendment. we would need to persuade 2/3rds then of the populace and congress to see things our way. Ain´t gonna happen. The political reality and only realistic choice is to push for abortion reduction policies. Obama insisted that these appear in the democratic platform. republicans actually removed abortion reduction that was in their platform previously.
Paul McCain: Listen to Obama carefully. Look at the very very detailed policy papers in his web site. Obama will be a conservative liberal. he will conserve the status quo on the brand of liberalism that is FDR/New Deal liberalism. and his foreign policies will look very much like those of Bush senior. He will not be a neo-con looking to remake the world. he will be more of a pragmatist like kissinger and nixon. He will also be like Reagan in that he is conscious, very much so, that great oratory can move the center of any debate, so he will use this to move our allies and our citizens. THIS is one of my main attractions to obama. Who can you name who was a great leader who was not also a great orator? If obama went “joe six pack” on us like Palin´s debate ouvre, that would probably be ebonics…. the classism/racism issues with this are not subtle ones. Obama IS part of the elite and comes from very humble origins. This does not make him Elite-ist. Elitist is a label that would better fit MCCain and his background of priviledge which he has used all his life, even when he decided to strategically tell his vietnamese captors that his dad was an admiral.
finally: here is an editorial by an antiabortion roman catholic canon lawyer that explains well how someone like me who believes abortion is terrible will vote for senator obama.
http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2058
it is telling that even fox news is reporting that obama won the debate and bill kristol is taking shots at mc cain and palin now….. the pundit opportunist conservatives-by-popular-demand-and-ratings are repositioning rapidly.
Nicholas P. Cafardi’s reasons for voting for a pro-abortion candidate is that he has given up and that he deludes himself into distinguishing between pro-abortion and pro-choice. Cafardi is a pro-life hypocrite.
Voting for a pro-abortionist is still a sin, whether the pro-abortionist voter thinks it is a sin or not.
I am in 100% agreement with you, Dr. Veith. This is now Obama’s election to lose. Mccain is running out of steam and nothing seems to be sticking to Sen. Teflon.
Imagine Obama pullin’ a Palin in the debate. flashin some black code signal with his hands (gang signs?) and talkin in that ebonics sorta way (you know, the way all your “regular folk” talk , people like susan aka here claim to know alot of those types)…When Palin talks about her representin’ regular folk does this include latino and black and asian “regular folk”? All this stuff is manipulative code for class and race. “us” vs “them”. we have had enough of leaders who divide us americans thusly to get elected. and divide us with viceral imagery rather than anything substantive. obama at the very least WILL change this one thing. for the better i might add!
Don´t we WANT a president to SOUND like he is someone who is elite? Who can use the english language eloquently and persuasively in a way that displays some sophistication? Who doesn´t use class as a manipulative tool (McCain´s background reads rich priviledged. elitist, as did bush´s background so yes, manipulative….) Nothing wrong with either rich or priviledged by the way. I admire Bush seniors record of humble service and he comes from a generation where the rich and priviledged felt a sense of duty to serve.
MC Cain is NO bush senior. He is an egomaniac. he is pure opportunist who has now sold his soul to win the presidency at any cost.
in april he was pledging no negative campaigning. in 2000 against bush he decried the very things he is now doing.
i respected and admire the former persona mc cain projected. now he is proving that that persona was just that, a persona. nothing real. conservatives were right all along to mistrust the man. I was duped.
#12 carl
mc cain is also a pro abortionist. just less so than obama.
he supports abortion in cases of rape and incest. Palin seems to be the real deal on this single issue. so the republican ticket is actually a mixed bag.
so you are saying it would be a sin to vote for mc cain?
and would you excommunicate anyone who votes republican or democrat in this election Carl? there won´t be alot of folks left at your church now will there….
From what I’ve read (sorry, I can’t take listening to politicians talk anymore), it seems that McCain’s big problem is that he’s not willing to put Obama’s previous actions in light of his past policies. For example, if Obama is REALLY against genocide, why the insistence on a quick pullout of Iraq?
Oh yeah, and basic ignorance of Econ 101 and willingness to say “Sen. Obama, Medicare and Medicaid are running at about 10 times projected expenditures even after inflation is accounted for, and drug benefits are also running well over projected expenses. What makes you think YOUR plan would be any different?”
I didn’t watch the debate. Had some more important responsibilities to take care of. I’m with you, Veith. I’ve been predicting an Obama victory for over a year now and I just have to say I think this campaign has been a waste of money and everyone’s time. Has there ever been so much money spent to try to elect politicians whom the economic crisis has exposed as having no real relevance?
If McCain won, Republicans would only get worse than they already are. Perhaps this loss will cause Republicans to review the policies of the last 8 years.
[…] Veith is convinced that Barack Obama will be the next president of the United […]
so you are saying it would be a sin to vote for mc cain?
If McCain continues his support for abortion in the case of incest and rape, then it would be a sin to vote for him.
Think of it like this: From a Christian perspective, would it be a sin to participate in a robbery of the Chase Manhattan Bank of New York? Would it be any less of a sin, or indeed no sin at all, to participate in the robbery of a small bank in the town of Wasilla?
would you excommunicate anyone who votes republican or democrat in this election Carl?
I can’t excommunicate anyone, even those who unrepentantly advocate voting to legalize homosexuality and queer marriages.
Personally, I thought that McCain did a pretty good job, considering that as in all the previous debates, and the remaining ones, the questions were pre-selected by Democrats to support the Democrat agenda, and ignored the issues that separate the two, such as abortion, homosexual “marriage”, first and second amendment rights, and so on.
McCain showed himself likeable, knowledgable, experienced, bipartisan, and able to get things to work. He also showed that he doesn’t rely upon government control of all of life (such as Obama’s complaint that 4 billion dollars would be left for Americans to spend rather than left in “the system” of the government if McCain is elected), and is focusing on those in danger of becoming homeless, rather than on pork such as Obama is.
Bike Bubba,
you write: “From what I’ve read (sorry, I can’t take listening to politicians talk anymore), it seems that McCain’s big problem is that he’s not willing to put Obama’s previous actions in light of his past policies. For example, if Obama is REALLY against genocide, why the insistence on a quick pullout of Iraq?”
Actually McCain touched on that fairly well and brilliantly in the debate, but it was ignored. This is one of those areas that really needs to be hammered out. Perhaps we don’t have a responsibility to the Iraqis precisely because we have an interest there? I don’t get that logic but it seems to be what is operating with Obama. Or maybe we just like poor Rawandans more than Arabs, and so think they deserve to be saved from genocide, but not the Arabs? Obama chastized McCain for getting us into a war with a country that in his words “had nothing to do with 9/11″ and in the same breath advocated going into places like Rawanda and Darfur. Huh? Am I missing something or are there Al Quaida camps in those areas?
Fact is if you want to stabilize the Middle East and change its direction you go into Iraq, not Afghanistan. History and geography lessons would be good for Americans.
You all need to read the rolling stones article about McCain. It makes McCain make sense. I hope that the article is not all true, but there sure are alot of credible men who have gone on public record in the interview , and what they say is not flattering to mc cain.
example:
Some of McCain´s fellow Vietnam vets are the toughest on him. John Dramesi was an Air Force lieutenant colonel who was imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam and a peer of McCain’s.
Dramesi attempted daring escapes twice and was brutally tortured and never cracked under the pressure. McCain himself called Dramesi “one of the toughest guys I’ve ever met.” Dramesi also went on to become chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander of a wing of the Strategic Air Command. I’m not sure how you get to be a bigger hero than that but like most real heroes and unlike McCain, Dramesi didn’t spend his life writing five memoirs commemmorating his own heroism or running every single political campaign partly on the basis of being a POW. And here’s what Dramesi now says about McCain:
“McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man. But he’s still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in.”
wow. read the whole article. it is an eye opener. I HOPE it is not true.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
#22 bror
I would REALLY like the press to compare what we are doing to the brittish experience when they governed iraq and afghanistan. what did they do, why did they do it, and what was the immediate and ultimate outcome?
THIS is what any look at history should probably focus on yes?
I have yet to see any serious attempt at this by the press, mc cain or obama. it would seem to make sense to at least consider….
He even had psychic aliens get him the questions before hand!
See? Weekly World News says so: http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/election-08/mccain-uses-aliens-to-get-town-hall-questions/
#24 bror
I agree,I am not sure we need to go to darfur or rwanda… however I think obama is talking about a concerted effort with our allies and the international community. I DO see a role for the usa as being a cheerleader and example to the world promoting our ideals and form of governance.
living now in south america is enlightening to me. in the 1800s we americans wielded an ENORMOUS influence on other nations. simon bolivar and the founders of brasil very obviously and consciously followed the american experiment in slavish detail. brasil was originally called the “united states of brasil” if you look at public buildings and political art and literature of those times you would think you were in the usa.
we projected this power of ideas at a time when we were NOT a world power. and yet our influence was so very much greater and we materially enabled simon bolivar and the brasilians to move towards democracy and away from tyranny. these men were idealists like our founders were. they believed in the rule of law.
during world war I, our soldiers were issued a pamphlet explaining why they were going to war. it actually described, in simple terms the distinction between a democracy, which it called the tyranical dictatorship of the 51% , and a constitutional republican form of government. Imagine. it was a different time. substance mattered.
Here in brasil I appreciate that simple ideal of the american founders: a society ruled by law and not by men.
awesome.
how many of us have fully digested that simple, yet powerful, ideal and what that would look like.
I see obama catching this idea more than bush/mc Cain. He rather consistently links policy positions to some underlying philosophy. So even if you disagree with his philosophy, there is a conceptual framework based on ideals. that is the main reason i will vote for him.
now we have presidents that say in essence “trust me” “trust my character” . bush for example. and they rely on projection of american “values” by military might. and then there is the idea of torture being ok…. we have drifted so far…..
I was struck by how McCain “corrected” Obama on the subject of “getting bin-Laden.” He said something about how one must not “telegraph his punch.” Did he forget that the Pakistanis are watching the debate too and will draw the inevitable conclusion?
Man, Dr. Veith did not watch the same debate I did last night. Obama did okay, but “he did so much more than John McCain did”? I didn’t think anybody came away smelling great from that.
Paul (@3), you said, “I suspect though that if the economy does not significantly improve, we will see the Congress returned to a majority of Republicans”, but have you looked at any polls lately? Right now, it looks like 56 Dems in the Senate and 246 in the House. I hope Americans do their normal thing in 2010 and vote in Republicans, but federal stalemates are likely at least that far off.
Kirk (@4), you hope “Obama won’t have enough funding to start any new projects”? Have you noticed it stopping the current federal government? You hope “economic difficulties will preclude him raising any taxes”? Actually, given the $700b pork bill, I’d be shocked if either candidate cut taxes.
FW (@14), of McCain you said: “He is an egomaniac. he is pure opportunist who has now sold his soul to win the presidency at any cost.” You went too far there.
[…] for” by their government instead of enjoying adult freedoms and responsibility. The Age of Obama is upon us, even if McCain does somehow win in spite of himself. There was a lot less light […]
FW, you’re reading Rolling Stone for political commentary? Reality is that your “source” is a classic hit piece loosely cobbled (very loosely) together with evidence taken out of context. My goodness.
And Obama a devotee of the rule of law? Say what? Tell that to the squad of lawyers he’s using to intimidate news outlets not to run opposing commercials. Want to trust such a man with the DOJ? He might have looked that way in the “debate,” but there is the harsh glow of “fact” that belies that claim.
Thanks for helping me keep my pledge NOT to watch these charades….
I sent in my ballot this morning. Didn’t vote for either of them, and yes, I believe that voting for someone who supports abortion = participating in evil.
What did Luther and the authors of the Formula write to princes concerning two less than ideal choices? We are not subjects in this country, we are the princes, and we exercise that when we vote.
Do we vote for a pure ticket that will not only lose but enhance the worst possible result in the election, or do we vote for the ok ticket, not one that is perfect, but one which will mostly do the job of government in restraining evil and doing good, albeit imperfectly?
You’re right, Anon. We don’t have to write-in “Jesus” on our ballots, we can write in some lesser 3rd party person who is willing and has the gumption to challenge the 2 party status quo, albeit imperfectly.
Bryan, but in the federal election, that is throwing your vote to the worst alternative, as I said immediately above your post.
I certainly favor strengthening the Constitution Party where possible, but when you hit the final election in the series, and you truly have only two choices with a chance of winning, what do you do? I would think you would vote for the chance to try again next time. And to save 50 or more million babies from being butchered by judges nominated by the worst option.
With respect, anon, I have come to see your (very common) viewpoint as “let us do evil, that good may come of it.”
McCain supports abortion in cases of rape and incest; he also support ESCR. A vote for him is a vote for his platform, plain and simple.
I personally don’t like the Constitution Party. I don’t agree with this foundational statement from their web page:
“…restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations.”
I like the constitutional limits part, but dislike the Biblical foundations thing they harp on but which I think is dangerous to civil law and is disingenuous regarding the real history of the founding of our country.
There are certainly better options for my write-in vote.
The two parties are bankrupt and have farmed out their responsibilities to unelected 3rd parties anyway, so what’s your beef, Anon?
And besides, the 2 parties have shown that they have no real interest in stopping the genocide of the next generation.
Bryan,
You mean to tell me that our founding fathers weren’t at Mt. Sinai?
Yes I agree, that is a very dangerouse little bit of revisionist history.
I respectfully dissent from the apparently widespread conviction that this election is over. Despite complete and utter media support, startling economic conditions, and eight years of an unpopular Republican president, Obama has apparently been unable to make the sale. He is up by 5 points or less in most polls, which is not nearly enough for a Democrat, since they historically over-poll. I’m not saying McCain is going to win, but what I am saying is that Obama has definitely had the wind at his back and cannot pull away. Why not? And can McCain go anywhere by up from here? We shall see.
Bryan @ 35 and Bror @ 36
I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees it this way. I heard the Constitution Party’s 2004 nominee speak once, and came away glad that he didn’t have a chance of winning.
More on topic, while it looks like Obama has the upper hand now, McCain’s not out yet. His campaign was declared dead at least once in the primaries, but the voters didn’t seem to get the memo. Besides, between the ACORN mess that is brewing and the Socialist “New Party” archives, Obama may yet have some explaining to do.
Dawn,
I understand your line of thinking. I do think that it is mistaken, but I understand it.
Is not that line of thinking trying to make one’s self pure at the cost of tens of millions of lives? Letting the means justify the ends? I know that Christian philosophers have gone into this in much detail, but I don’t have anything in front of me that I can look up and cite. Maybe someone else, does. I’m not condemning you, but think about what I’ve suggested.
Bryan and Bror, actually the CP is correct about our legal foundations, and history shows that very clearly. See Blackstone’s Commentaries which used to be the standard textbooks for law school in this country. I’ve studied history, I’ve read original source documents. It is the textbooks that say otherwise that are revisionist. Not the actual writings of the people involved. And, if you think it is dangerous, what do you mean when you come to the petition in the Lord’s Prayer that God’s will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven?
The GOP does reduce the genocide, and if President Bush’s nominees to various vacant benches hadn’t been improperly held up for eight years by the Democrats in congress, even more progress might have been made. What is needed is for Roe v Wade to be overturned, not made into a fundamental right as Obama would do. If that happens, we cannot even work towards its overturn any longer, just as clinic protests were pretty much ended by the notorious FACE Act.
I don’t believe that we can sacrifice another 50 million lives to a Quixotic attempt at ideological purity. This is the kingdom of the left, not the right, we have to work with what we have, and do no evil in the process. Is it truly evil to choose for the best effect in saving human lives? Another example would be that in lifeguard training, there is one lesson where you are supposed to strip naked in a co-ed environment to practice rescuing someone. If you can’t do that, you aren’t supposed to pass. Long ago when I took that, our teachers let us off the hook, but the point is that clothing will fill with water, weigh you down, and potentially cost your life and the drowning person’s as well, so the question is; can you sacrifice your pride and go ahead and do what is needed, or not? Some would argue that public nudity is always wrong, even if it costs human lives. Others would say that there are extreme instances where it might be unavoidable. In this instance, it is I think unavoidable that to save tens of millions of lives, and religious and political freedom in America, that we have to vote for the imperfect McCain and the rather better Palin, rather than throwing our support indirectly towards the man who would make sure the killings and loss of freedom came to pass - after all, he has promised to do so.
I think that your view is the sort of scrupulosity that Luther had to learn to fight against, and then preach against, though it was always a struggle for him.
I think that the matter really does boil down to this:
“Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty.” — Sam Adams
and
Deuteronomy 30:19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live
In spite of the legacy media and the Democrat Party trying to demoralize us and make us believe that Obama is unstoppable, master pollster Zogby says that in truth, the election is too close to call.
We must take heart, repent of our known sins, pray earnestly to God for victory, and work towards that end for the sake of the tens of millions of human lives, and the countless souls that will be led astray by indoctrination.
I don’t know what was going on with the debate, besides the stool that caused his war wounds to hurt, and the lighting that made him look very old, but here is the real McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4wgwKPQIhI
Leave a Comment