I don’t evaluate candidates on how well they spew out facts and statistics. That’s a common tactic in many debate leagues, but being able to do that tells me little. Presidents have staffs that tell them the name of the president of Nicaragua and garner various facts. Nor do I expect candidates to come up with some brilliant idea to solve our nation’s problems. Those problems are generally too complex for simplistic solutions of the kind that can come off the top of someone’s head. Those are matters for in-depth research, collaborative thinking, and lots of counselors.
What I do care about are the candidate’s political philosophy, his character, and his judgment.
How are the candidates measuring up in my mind? In philosophy, I worry that John McCain does not have much of one. He is pragmatic rather than ideological. He leans conservative, but does not seem to be governed much by that philosophy. He does have principles that he fiercely defends, which I respect, and he is pro-life. For me, being pro-life trumps just about everything in a politician. It tells me that he believes in moral absolutes, recognizes evil when he sees it, and believes in transcendent human rights that go beyond the state and the culture.
In philosophy, I want to know more about Barack Obama’s ideology. Specifically, I want to know if he is a political radical, such as I knew in my college days. I want to know more about his ties to William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Saul Alinsky. I’m going to be posting about this, starting today. Not because I want to pursue guilt by association, but I want to know about what the possible, even likely, future president of the United States believes. Nothing in this campaign is more important to me than that. I do know that he is liberal, pro-death, and has an essentially secularist worldview.
In character, I respect hugely McCain’s military record and his five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp–especially his refusal to be released until his comrades could also be released. But I am bothered by how he divorced his wife and remarried when he returned. I’m also worried about his temperament and his temper.
In character, I appreciate Barack Obama’s projection of calm, restraint, and self-control. I’d like to know more about him.
In judgment, I cannot understand how McCain would push that campaign finance bill that regulates political speech in a way that seems flatly unconstitutional. Some of his judgments seem good, while others seem bad. The man is decisive, though. He is definitely principled.
In judgment, we do not have much of a track record to go on with Obama. I need more information.
If any of you could help me out with any of the above–correcting me if I have something wrong or giving me additional information–I’d be much obliged.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }
McCain’s take on the divorce from his first was basically described by him, through the Saddleback forum and other things I’ve seen, as a “stupid call.” No real explanations, just a “that was dumb, I did it, I was at fault, but now that it is past, lets get on with it.” Which I found about as appealing as it is possible to be considering the circumstances.
Regarding McCain Feingold campaign finance reform, I saw a great article on it applying McCain’s pattern of thinking to the Campaign finance bill. We’ve talked on this blog about how McCain sees two camps of “good for America” and “bad for America” or “statesman” and “selfish politician” categories. At the time, the campaign finance system had, at the very least, the appearance of major fraud, and McCain saw it as imperative to the integrity of America to stop it. When corruption is involved in picking your leaders, how can we pretend they are legitimate?
So, McCain, in traditional military “overwhelm and destroy” tactics, put up every wall and barrier he could to stop the underhanded flow of money in campaign finance. If there could be a regulation, then dadgummit, there’s GUNNA be a regulation, because we’re going to STOP this here corruption! It was a noble intention, but in reality, some of those barriers worked, and many of them didn’t. If you try hard enough, you can always get around a regulation. The major problem now is that there are so many barriers, that instead of a wall to guard against corruption, we have more like a maze that hinders even legitimate action. Noble intention, poor follow-through.
Part of your description of McCain being very pragmatic and somewhat less devoted to underlying principles of “conservative” government (govt’s job is to punish the evil of society, but do relatively little else) sounds exactly right. His support of embryonic stem cell research while opposing abortion and saying that he holds that life begins at conceptions seems to exemplify that, as does his support of the campaign finance bill and this recent atrocity of a bailout.
His principles seem to be mostly internal, and I haven’t been able to figure out what sort of external set of standards he follows so that I can know with certainty what he will support and oppose.
The Jones wrote: McCain’s take on the divorce from his first was basically described by him, through the Saddleback forum and other things I’ve seen, as a “stupid call.” No real explanations, just a “that was dumb, I did it, I was at fault, but now that it is past, lets get on with it.” Which I found about as appealing as it is possible to be considering the circumstances.
Accordng to the Saddleback transcript, McCain answered Rick Warren’s question of the greatest moral failure in his life by saying, “My greatest moral failing — and I have been a very imperfect person — is the failure of my first marriage. It’s my greatest moral failure.”
Jones, when did McCain make the statements you quoted in your post? Did McCain make the statements you quoted before or after his Saddleback interview? Do you have a reference for the McCain quotes you presented? Are you aware of whether McCain change his view regarding his own moral failure in his first marriage since he made that statement to Rick Warren?
The best source may be the new book by Corsi, who was just detained in Kenya because he was about to reveal connections between Obama and certain elements of the Kenyan government. That is the ‘change’ Obama will bring to America. I cannot fathom how any Lutheran would want that. Yet it is contiguous with Obama’s anti-free speech efforts here in the States, ranging from the attempts to get Corsi – and radio stations that dared to interview him – shut up, the attempt to use law enforcement to arrest dissenters from Obama, and many other activities of that nature.
Then you have the Maoist like children songs of praise to Obama, and the public school indoctrination of students towards Obama, from Virginia’s pushing for all teachers to campaigning the classrooms for Obama, and including black shirts and military pants and quasi-military drill. You have the campaign art modeled on Leninist art from the Stalinist Soviet Union, and other campaign art modeled on Nazi political art – including his campaign stop in Berlin at the Statue of Victory, complete with a blimp filling in for the Zeppelin that Hitler had when he did the same thing.
One thing leftists understand is that the style of art has meaning, and can be the message, just as when Martin Luther King Jr. spoke at the Lincoln Memorial (I’m not saying that MLKjr was a leftist, I’m illustrating the usage). This campaign art including the Berlin speech are intentional. The message is intentional, and understood by many, especially Europeans.
Last year while campaigning in Kenya, Obama campaigned for his cousin Raila Odinga who ran on a platform of promising Sharia law in Kenya. Odinga lost the election, so his followers – Luo tribesmen, who are Muslims murdered 1500 Christians, burned 300 churches – one full of women and children who had fled there for sanctuary, and made (reports vary) 250,000 to 500,000 Kenyans homeless. This caused the winner of the elections to hand the prime ministerial office to Odinga. I know a family who are now missionaries in Kenya. It is a scary time in that former British colony that once looked to be the sole non-white country south of the Sahara that would be able to maintain a western democracy and legal system. The global jihad – which Obama campaigned for – has ruined that.
Corsi’s previous book – and numerous other sources – detail Obama’s long alliance and working relationship with William Ayers, Khalid al’ Mansour, Jeremiah Wright (who’s Christianity can be challenged on numerous grounds), Tony Rezko and other allies and associates whose sole unifying factor was a hatred for America, and dare I say it, for Christians. There really is no other unity between Islamists like Mansour and Leninists like Ayers.
Is this the change that roughly half of Americans want? Or are they deceived? How can -any- Lutherans who believe in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible and believe the Lutheran confessions, support this man and this agenda?
One thing I look at (and you can look this up on my site if you care to see) very closely is how the candidates handle their personal finances–along the lines of the adage that if you want to know what’s on a person’s heart, look in their checkbook.
The result in a nutshell; the GOP does better in all areas; charitable giving, savings, and diversification of assets. Overall ranking: McCain, Palin, Obama, Biden–Biden is a basket case who has failed to accumulate significant assets even after 35 years of excellent pay in the Senate.
I dare suggest that how a person handles their personal finances is going to indicate how they’re going to handle a federal budget.
Anon: Botswana has been a successfull democracy, and is south of the Sahara too. Tanzania has kept a fairly even keel as well. Zambia has worked hard to get rid of Kaunda’s legacy. Mozambique has a long way to go still, but is on the right track – having experienced decades of Marxist government and civil war.
Now I’m going into neutral gear: Whether your opinions are of the right or the left, a person would do well to stay away from conspiracy theories and associated styles of journalism. That fits better with Jack Chick & co. Also, a person might change his opinions or his views during his lifetime – I know, I’ve done it a couple of times already. So whether we debate McCain or Obama or whoever else, we would do well to leave the conspiracy nut and sloganeering at home. Even when we differ greatly from them. It does not become a Christian to act like a revolutionary, not from the left, nor from the right.
That said – we have a general election north of the 49th in a weeks time. Anybody here actually noticed that? (Canadian politics is boring, boring is good….)
Bike,
I hope you aren’t implying that you follow the view of the later Puritans (and the disciples until Jesus corrected them) that the poor were that way because of sin, and that wealth and success indicates God’s favor?
Scylding I did say “once was” in what I wrote. Missing words can change meaning.
It is sad that it is such a quiet election in the PRC. The resistance by Canadians to the “Human Rights Commission” and their fascistic censorship and attack on Christians, even to the point of trying to force pastors and bishops to deny their faith in Christ, ought to be very loud. Polite – that is Canada – but loud.
The Obama strategy:
(not of him or by him)
Over-all:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/sowing_acorns_to_reap_the_bigg.html
For this phase: The Cloward-Piven strategy:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/sowing_acorns_to_reap_the_bigg.html
Sorry, somehow the correct URL for the over-all strategy didn’t get pasted in:
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/Yuri%2BBezmenov/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov
Anon: PRC – hah! The thing is, it is often localised, but well publicised. But there are changes happening – quitely. Also, just like people in the rest of the world think the US is all Washington and Hollywood, people think Canada is all Toronto & Vancouver. Here in the prairies (SK), things are different to some extent – my children are in a government school, and they start the day with prayer, everyday. My Lutheran pastor was invited to lecture the kids in a local high school on the Reformation, and he made it clear that he is not going to be neutral. He was told to go ahead, and will be invited back – those kids got the gospel!
Generalisations, including this one, are always wrong…..
Carl, @3
Well, that’s really a summary of vibe that I’ve been getting for a while.
A the convention, he but out his life story, and he showed how he went from a selfish flyboy type of guy to someone who started to appreciate the important things in life. I believe it’s fair to take the marriage story and apply it to that same course. At the Saddleback forum, he acknowledged it as HIS failing.
And judging from his second marriage, I think McCain has changed quite dramatically in the way he goes about his personal life. The man has adopted orphaned and abandoned children, facilitated other adoptions and paid for those children’s futures. Cindy McCain has done lots of work in Rwanda and elsewhere for humanitarian efforts. We’ve talked before on this blog about the way McCain doesn’t like to toot his own horn about the good things he’s done, etc.
Taking all that, I summarized McCain’s first marriage with those statements. I’m sorry if it was misleading. Those aren’t McCain quotes, those are quotes from me summarizing things about McCain. Grammatical and citation error.
Anon; absolutely not on the prosperity Gospel stuff. What I’m getting at is what Christ commends; are they good stewards of what God has given them? Do they live within their means, save for the future, and give charitably?
In other words, if they can handle their family’s budget, then they might be able to handle a national budget. On the other hand, if they cannot handle a family budget, then they won’t be able to handle a government budget, either.
Here is what some youth see in one candidate!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy09UpI60F8
Also of interest regarding candidates, though hopefully not significant. Went grocery shopping last night, and noticed that at least two tabloids are currently alleging marital difficulties on the part of the GOP candidates.
If true, valuable insight. However, given the source, I’m going to assume it’s false, and occasion for a well justified public flogging of those “journalists” responsible.
(and yes, I am serious about the flogging bit….somebody needs to feel a bit of real pain for stunts like this!)
The Jones wrote: Those aren’t McCain quotes, those are quotes from me summarizing things about McCain. Grammatical and citation error.
When you discusse the views of someone, use the phrase “basically described by him”, and then enclose first person statements in quotation marks, you are not summarizing a “vibe that I’ve been getting for a while”; you are implying that the statements are what that person actually said. It is not an indication of “if it was misleading”, but that it was misleading.
Would anyone reading this posting or the one following (Obama as undergraduate) consider not voting for McCain if questions about Ayers or Obama’s ideology were answered?
I’ve thought of commenting, but it seems a waste of effort, given that everyone here appears to be a one-issue (abortion) McCain supporter, no matter what McCain says or does on other issues. Correct me if I’m wrong.
That one issue, the brutal murder by caustic solutions or drawing and quartering over more than 1 million babies per year is such a dramatic matter that it really is a sufficient single issue.
Would you not agree that the Holocaust was a sufficient issue?
What kind of man works hard to keep the murder by exposure of infants legal? If that is his attitude towards “the little ones” towards the weak in society, which is the measure of any civilization, what would his attitude in other sectors be?
I understand your view, Anon, and presume you speak for most who post here.
So why this feigned interest in Obama’s ideology?
Jonathan — good point, actually. Speaking for myself, I am, indeed, one of those who considers Abortion to be a “sufficient, single issue,” as Anon @17 puts it. There are actually any number of “sufficient, single issues” which would prevent me from voting from Obama. My interest in his political ideology, however, is not to determine how I will vote. It is, rather, an interest born of a sense of civic duty: first, to go through the exercise of considering all of the issues (which I think I owe to my fellow citizens as I make voting decisions that have the potential to effect them as much as me); second, to be able to spar effectively with those in my sphere of influence who are unmoved by the “sufficient, single issues” which I find compelling. It’s part of being an enculturated and effective citizen, in my opinion.
Carl @15
Sorry man, didn’t know you took it so personally. My bad.
Freddy, I respectfully dispute the assertion that true single-issue voters can be “encultured and effective citizen[s].” I suggest it is because such people ignore the fact that no issue ever stands alone.
Abortion, for example, is intertwined with such things as health care availability, reducing teen pregnancies, even with our country’s war policy, since it also causes the taking of innocent life.
Because abortion remains a constitutional right, it is easy to oppose it; nothing now can be done to make it illegal. For this reason, abortion, in my view, is an odd single issue to focus on, since the anti-abortion candidate, if elected, can totally ignore the subject while in office. (My preference is that every anti-abortion candidate should be compelled to say whether he or she believes that, Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion should be criminalized; and if so, what the penalty should be. That would result in more realistic discussions.)
On the other hand, because elected officials can improve life by curtailing war and improving health care, it seems to me that a pro-life voter would also want to evaluate a candidate’s views on these matters.
But with respect to Obama and what I think is the Ayers red herring, the conservative commentator below makes some sense. Read his whole post; he argues that Obama’s Chicago background is more relevant than his nebulous ties to Ayers.
_________________
http://frum.nationalreview.com/
“The Chicago Way”
My pals over at the Corner are very excited by the last-minute attempt to transform Bill Ayers into the Willie Horton of 2008. Well, good luck
In 1988, crime was a huge and rising problem – and Democrats still by and large resisted the effective crime control policies being developed at places like the Manhattan Institute and that would achieve such great results in the 1990s. So Willie Horton, the furloughed rapist and murderer, symbolized in very graphic terms something important and significant about Michael Dukakis the candidate.
But Bill Ayers? Does anybody really seriously believe that Barack Obama is a secret left-wing radical? And if not, then what is this fuss and fury supposed to show? It’s like Ronald Reagan’s opponents trying to beat him by pointing out that Birchers once supported him.
Negative campaigning only works when it offers a new data point to support a convincingly drawn hostile image.”
Jonathan, it is precisely because issues are linked that a single issue voter can be so effective. I noticed a few years back, for example, that it was rare for a pro-life voter to be anti-gun, or vice versa. Some exceptions, of course, but if you get some issues right, others tend to come with it.
Now personally, I tend to look at a few issues because I like to, but I do not fault someone for making abortion a non-negotiable issue. It’s not; you’re either for brutally murdering children in the womb, or you’re against it.
Why would interest in Obama’s ideology be feigned? That does not logically follow.
That abortion is a single sufficient issue is not logically contradicted by there being other such sufficient issues.
So, Jonathan, then theoretically, Germans could have voted for Hitler based upon other issues, since the Holocaust would be a single-issue? Our grandparents sure didn’t take that view when they overthrew National Socialist Germany and paraded the local villagers through the camps.
When one also remembers that the apostle John writes that “no murderer has eternal life in him” then your claim that we cannot be cultured if we oppose abortion as a non-negotiable (along with the Roman Catholic Church for instance, and all of the culture which has come from that over the centuries) is absurd, and merely insulting.
Where exactly in the Constitution is this ‘Constitutional Right” to abortions? Article and paragraph would be helpful.
Your confutation of war with abortion is illogical, as are the other things you try to tie into it like health care. Abortion is murder, period. It is always wrong. It is an intrinsic evil. Differing positions on war and health care can involve matters of extrinsic evil, or even just matters of prudential judgment.
Ayers is no red herring. Obama’s long alliance with this terrorist, and his long-term close working relationship with him and several other individuals of like ideologies is indeed quite significant. Curiously, Democrats have considered even mere loose contacts such as Judge Bork’s having a condo(?) that had a fine-print clause that he disagreed with, as reason to refuse to give consent to his being appointed to the Supreme Court. But they want us to ignore Obama’s close, long-term association with communist and islamist terrorists, as supposedly being red herrings. This sounds like power politics without any interest in truth AT ALL.
Obama is not a secret left-wing radical. There is nothing secret about it.
Have you read any of the data that have been posted here over the last couple weeks? Have you missed all of that?
Your final paragraph on negative campaigning reveals that post-modern mindset that words are merely a means to power, and that there is no objective transcendent knowable truth. You evaluate ‘negative campaigning’ wholly upon alleged effectiveness or ineffectiveness without considering the truth issue.
Anon (@24), do be careful in following the quotation marks. The “You” you’re accusing of “post-modern mindset” is conservative columnist David Frum over at the National Review Online, not Jonathan (@21).
Anon, the question remains: Since 1973, the Republicans have been in power for 23 years, the democrats for 12. Yet despite a lot of bluster, abortion is continuing as before. Why would it change now? Note – I’m not condoning abortion – not at all. I’m merely asking some questions. It seems to us outside the US that the GOP time and again get the “Christian right” to vote for them on the back of perceptions, not reality. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me 5 times – well, ain’t that saying somethin? And at the same time, GOP foreign policy has done immeasureable damage to, for instance, the Christian Community in Iraq, which has been decimated – see the following:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html?_r=2&ref=world&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.christiansofiraq.com/escape.html
Also, in an earlier post you listed on Obama you listed somebody as dangerous, because he is a Syrian. Did you know that Syria is the safest country for Christians in the Middle East? (lost the reference, can somebody please help?)
Some points.
Anon @24 – I myself said nothing about negative campaigning. I quoted a portion of D. Frum’s article, which ought to be read in its entirety at its site. Frum’s point is that Obama’s Ayers connection is simply too implausible to support negative campaigning, but his connection to Chicago’s machine politics, which are famously shady, might be worth exploiting. No one seems to want to do that; it’s more exciting to use the word “terrorist” even if it doesn’t fit.
Anon @23 – I do not support abortion on demand, though I am unclear where to draw the line in terms of legislation, which is what we elect people to office to draft. War and abortion are related. War is murder, period. Is it ever justified? Yes, just as self defense may be justified on a personal level. But the ancient doctrine of the just war no longer interests American Christians. We chant USA! USA! as the bombs drop as a result of our country’s preventative war doctrine. Remember shock and awe? God help us. It’s beyond me how those who so vociferously say they oppose abortion can so blithely excuse “collateral damage” and vote for candidates they know will prolong (and even seek out) war.
Bubba @22, we agree that issues are linked, though perhaps we disagree on the linkage. I respect that abortion is non-negotiable for you, though I am not sure I understand how that affects your vote. I assume you cannot in good conscience vote for McCain, since he does not oppose abortion in the circumstances you do.
But the question should not be, which candidate opposes abortion? It’s obvious that one can oppose (verbally) abortion all day long yet do nothing to reduce the number of them. The question is, which candidate will work to reduce the number of abortions?
Anon (@23), if it is true, as you imply, that it is a sin to vote for a politician who in any way supports the legality of killing the unborn, then I pray for your own sake you are not voting for McCain.
I don’t agree with this assertion, of course, but if you truly believe that is a sin, then it actually would be a sin for you to vote for McCain. Do you understand this?
Of course, there are plenty of third-party candidates out there (I’m still considering them myself), so perhaps you will be voting for them. But if you vote for McCain, you condemn yourself by your own standard.
“Those are matters for in-depth research, collaborative thinking, and lots of counselors.” And I am rather troubled by McCain’s ability to surround himself with the right people (cf. Gramm, Fiorina, Palin, Keating, etc., not to mention the people running his campaign). I also do not get the impression that “in-depth research” is his thing — he seems to be a man of impulsive action (or at least words about action — cf. his reaction to the economic crisis, or Russia’s invasion of Russia). This, too, worries me.
“He leans conservative, but does not seem to be governed much by that philosophy.” Yes, and in this regard he reminds me very much of the current President. Understand: this does not comfort me.
“He does have principles that he fiercely defends, which I respect, and he is pro-life.” He is not pro-life. He is relatively more pro-life, but you cannot say of someone who supports embryonic stem-cell research and abortions in the case of rape or incest that he is “pro-life”. Or, if you can, then the term is of little to no value. I won’t even get into the issue of warmongering and why that never seems to be considered in “pro-life” calculus.
“It tells me that he believes in moral absolutes, recognizes evil when he sees it, and believes in transcendent human rights that go beyond the state and the culture.” All of these are belied by McCain’s actual stances, as I’ve described. If you believe in exceptions in the case of rape or incest, what sort of “absolute” is at the center of your morals? Do the “human rights” of an infant not “transcend” its sinful origins?
Jonathan — I am inclined with agree with you as you “respectfully dispute the assertion that true single-issue voters can be ‘encultured and effective citizen[s],’” depending, of course, on your definition of “true single-issue voters.” The popular caricature of the single-issue voter, as I am aware of it, is one which precludes thoughtful investigation into issues other than “the one issue.” I know people like this, and you are correct, I question their awareness of culture in general and effectiveness within it.
On the other hand, those who endeavor to look diligently into other issues, even though a single issue is sufficient for them to make a voting decision, I would not classify as “true single-issue voter” in the sense that they are uninformed of other issues — these are not “such people [who] *ignore* the fact that no issue ever stands alone” as you put it (emphasis mine), above. These are people who are fully aware, and for reasons of conscience, place such issues at the pinnacle of importance *despite* other related issues.
Most often, if I may generalize, the “sufficient, single issue” is a matter of ideology, while the other related issues are matters of pragmatics. This differentiation is not insignificant, in my opinion.
You do raise an interesting point regarding a candidate’s position on Abortion: the fact that, short of a repeal of Roe v. Wade, it can’t be made illegal, rendering a candidate’s opposition to abortion a rhetorical exercise. The Scylding @26 points out that, “Since 1973, the Republicans have been in power for 23 years, the democrats for 12. Yet despite a lot of bluster, abortion is continuing as before.” So why is a candidate’s opposition to abortion relevant? First, I submit that abortion is a cultural fixture in the U.S. (sadly, IMHO). As a result, the immediate objective for abortion opponents, such as myself, is to reduce the number of “legal” abortions. The secondary objective is to influence society such that regard for abortion becomes decreasingly negative. To this end, while abortion cannot be made illegal apart from Supreme Court action, it can be regulated. A candidate’s position on abortion is an indication of how s/he will exploit opportunities to regulate/restrict it. In addition, as a leader in society, a candidate’s position on abortion will impact how s/he speaks of the issue in public and influences society. Second, a candidate’s position on abortion is indicative of how s/he regards an individual’s right to life, and how that candidate will address related issues of euthanasia and embryonic stem-cell research. Third, a candidate’s position on abortion is an indication of how s/he will take advantage of opportunities to influence the choice of Supreme Court Justices — to overturn Roe v. Wade. Pragmatic consequences aside, this is the “Holy Grail” of the abortion movement as I see it, to at least remand the issue back to the States.
As a Lutheran, I must confess, that I find Abortion to be a distinct act of moral depravity. The tiny souls extinguished by this act are, at conception, lost in sin and transgression, and are in desperate need of the Gospel in the Sacrament of Baptism. To see them to full term and birth is necessary for the sake of their eternal souls. Yes, this argument will carry little weight in a political/secular debate, but it is one that weighs heavily upon my conscience, and determines my position. For this reason, I don’t see that the “right to life,” as it relates to the issue of abortion, is relevant to the issue of necessary and Just War, and the loss of lives that result. And I will add, parenthetically, that I find McCain’s position on embryonic stem-cell research to be dissatisfying, to say the least.
Finally, regarding Ayers — if this turns out to be just Obama’s relationship with a Chicago English professor, then Frum’s point is correct, the issue is dead. However, I think Dr. Veith is right when he expresses curiosity regarding whether and how well the two were acquainted during Obama’s undergraduate years at Columbia. This could be significant.
Correction: “The secondary objective is to influence society such that regard for abortion becomes *decreasingly* negative,” in my previous comment should be “…*increasingly* negative.”
tODD #28. I got to hand it to you, you consistently beat the drum that McCain and Obama are morally equivalent when it comes to abortion. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, this is incorrect. But I guess holding on to this fantasy helps you sleep at night. You and Joe Biden have much in common: life begins at conception, but, hey, there’s nothing wrong with Roe v. Wade. With up to 3 Supreme Court seats potentially opening up in the next 4 years, this election could determine the role of abortion in our society for generations.
Also, McCain is not perfect from the pro-life point of view, but let us examine the impact of third-party voting. If one votes for a third-party candidate and McCain wins, they have made the proper choice (from the pro-life point of view). But what if, as Florida learned in 2000, that their vote cost McCain the election. Then, they handed the election to Obama, and made the wrong choice (from the pro-life point of view). The unfortunate “rules of the game” are that there are only 2 real choices, meaning the lesser of two evils must sometimes be chosen. An imperfect situation in a fallen world.
tODD #29 Seriously??? You complain in the other thread about Obama/Ayers and how people are making a big deal about who Obama associates with, and… wait for it…. you say you are “rather troubled by McCain’s ability to surround himself with the right people”. And throw in Keating for a bonus.
And let’s not forget that great liberal talking point “warmongering”. Of course, LCMS
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/WRHC
/028_Can%20War%20be%20Just.PDF
has an interesting discussion about the concept of just war, mentioning Iraq. War, unlike abortion, need not be intrinsically evil. Whether Bosnia, Iraq or Afghanistan, reasonable people can disagree on which ones were just and which were not. But to suggest that voting for Obama because he will keep us out of war somehow counterbalances his abortion stance on the pro-life scale is disingenuous at best.
Mathguru (@32), are you actually reading my comments? I am not claiming that “McCain and Obama are morally equivalent when it comes to abortion”. McCain is clearly more “pro-life” than Obama. But that doesn’t make him consistently “pro-life”. There are clear instances where he is, to use the preferred term, “pro-abortion”, in addition to advocating (as it is so often phrased here) for the murder of embryos for the purpose of scientific study. I have no problem with someone voting for McCain because he is more “pro-life”. I take issue with someone claiming facilely that McCain is “pro-life” and therefore Christians must vote for him.
And, unlike Biden as well as McCain, I believe that life begins at conception, and I believe that abortion in cases of rape and incest is wrong, as well as embryonic stem cell research.
“This election could determine the role of abortion in our society for generations.” I thought Bush’s election was supposed to have resolved that. No? How about the previous Bush’s? Reagan? When will voting for a Republican actually have this alleged outcome? It’s called the placebo effect.
Your third-party scare tactics do not impress me. That will always be the argument from someone who is committed to a bad candidate from the two major parties. Besides, if you want to play realpolitik: as my state is currently polling +12% for Obama, a vote for McCain is, as such, no more meaningful than one for a a third-party candidate. I’d rather vote for someone I respect more.
As for Keating (@33), I mentioned him in light of the new rules about what’s important in the election. That said, I do believe McCain’s association with him is a little better documented than the Obama-Ayers connection.
And yes, war “need not be intrinsically evil.” That is not in any way a defense of any particular war. Do you believe — as I do — that a war waged by a Republican can, in fact be horribly wrong, foolish, wasteful, or something along those lines?
“But to suggest that voting for Obama because he will keep us out of war somehow counterbalances his abortion stance on the pro-life scale is disingenuous at best.” Hmm, I’ll measure Bush by both standards. Let’s see, number of abortions Bush has so far prevented by his decisions: none. Number of innocent adult people (to say nothing of American soldiers) who have died so far due to Bush’s decisions: at least in the tens of thousands. “Disingenuous”? I guess that’s your call.
Scylding,
Being a Canadian, you might not know that we have a three-branch system of federal government, with checks and balances. The president does not (legally) make laws. Only congress can do that, and they can only pass if the president signs the laws. The Democrats have been in charge for much of that time, especially in the Supreme Court with having had an anti-Constitution pro-abortion majority for decades. You just don’t understand America, Scylding, or you wouldn’t blame the GOP for abortion continuing in America. At least we got some limitations on it, passed alaw forbidding mid-birth abortions and allowing parental consent laws (which is required otherwise for *aspirin*) and some justices now favor the Constitution. That is progress. Obama would strip all of that away within days of taking office. He has promised to do so.
Jonathan
The “egregious Frum” is a neo-con who expelled the paleo-cons from that magazine. Neo-cons are Kennedy Democrats who left the Democrat Party after the McGovernist putsch.
I see that the Alinskayan/Gramscian socialists continue to hawk their lies here.
tODD: You wrote “Let’s see, number of abortions Bush has so far prevented by his decisions: none.” Source? I need a citation please. Let’s see what W has indeed done: 1. signed the partial birth abortion act, something Clinton vetoed. 2. appointed Alito to the court, a very likely vote to help overturn Roe v. Wade
3. appointed Roberts to the court, a potential vote to help overturn RvW. 4. reinstated the ban on federal funds to overseas abortions. While the long-term effects of 2 and 3 are uncertain, 1 and 4 are steps in the right direction. President Obama will lift the ban and have a projected 1-3 court nominees, who will vote to keep abortion legal. McCain has pledged to appoint justices who will vote to overturn it. (his campaign website.) In the area of abortion, the President can only sign/veto laws, sign executive orders, and appoint justices to the court. Due to the projected makeup of congress, I doubt abortion laws, either restricting or loosening, will be passed. I don’t expect McCain to overturn W’s executive orders concerning abortion, given his statements on his website. Even though McCain may _personally_ not be a 100% pro-lifer, is a 100% _political_ pro-lifer. As I pointed out earlier, even NARAL says so. So, yeah, I fail to understand how you can keep saying that McCain is only “more” pro-life than Obama.
W’s efforts are hardly a placebo effect. It is exactly as I described above: getting justices on the supreme court (some like Souter disappoint and can be considered a “wasted pick”) and signing laws and executive orders. It is a slow, tough process to increment this change. And President Obama will make abortion safe and legal through his appointments. With abortion safe and legal, there is no reason why it would naturally follow that it would also be rare. It’s not a placebo, it is called being ever vigilant.
Wars:
Yes, wars started by Republicans can be immoral and wars started by Democrats can be moral. Do you agree the opposite is also true? When US troops get bogged down in Darfur under President Obama, will casualties still be a concern? Or are only casualties in Iraq worthy of counting? How about the handful of soldiers who died in Kosovo? Was Clinton was right to stop the genocide there, and was Bush wrong to stop genocide in Iraq? I think both actions were correct.
In your war calculus, you forgot: Number of Iraqis no longer brutally murdered by Saddam. I’m sure countless Kurds would have liked us to have invaded earlier, say, before being gassed.
Voting: I live in a swing state where polling has the race nearly even, you apparently do not. Due to our political system, my vote is weighted higher because of this. I do not have the luxury voting idealistically.
Keating, etc: As Christians, when our brothers engage in bad behavior, we should gently correct them and not engage in Tu Quoque.
#35: I understand that perfectly well. If you bothered in the slightest to actually read what people say, instead of assuming you know what happens in their heads, you will realise that the force of my argument is against the opposing arument, often used by one-issue voters like yourself, that being anti-abortion means being Republican. It is much more complex than that. But what also worries me is that time and again you throw things out like – you’re a Canadian therefore you don’t know… And when I’ve caught you out, twice, of talkingnonsense about African politics and history, some if it downright racist, you shyed away.
There are worthy Republican- and Democrat-leaning debaters here. Don’t embarass yourself any further, I praythee…
That said, I do not hold any personal grudges. If you ever make the trip to the Great White North, I’ll buy you a pint….
Mathguru: Did you read the links on Iraqi Christians I posted earlier. No situation is ever simple….
Mathguru (@36), thanks for correcting me.
I give Bush credit for the Partial-Birth Abortion Act. According to the latest statistics I could find, there were 2,200 such abortions in 2000. I don’t think there are any data on how many there have been since 2003 (the law doesn’t completely ban them). As for the “ban on federal funds to overseas abortions”, is there any data to suggest this has resulted in a decreased number of abortions? And, like you said, Roberts and Alito have yet to have an effect, right?
So you can point to, say, 2,000 abortions that Bush has prevented. How many Iraqi civilians have died in our wars? Do the 4,000+ American soldiers count in this calculus? How about Afghani civilians since we lost focus on it in favor of Iraq, thereby prolonging our involvement there? In summary, it seems to me that Bush’s wars have counterbalanced his abortion stance in terms of overall effects on life. And yet you said (@33) it was “disingenuous” “to suggest that voting for Obama because he will keep us out of war somehow counterbalances his abortion stance on the pro-life scale”. Not that I suggested that — that was your construction alone. But nor do I think it’s disingenuous.
“McCain may personally not be a 100% pro-lifer, is a 100% political pro-lifer.” Yeah, that doesn’t make sense — are you suggesting that his voting record is pristine, even if he personally kills a few people? No, I know you’re not, but what possible meaning could “100% political pro-lifer” have, given that McCain politically supports embryonic stem cell research and abortion in the case of rape or incest? His political record is not completely pro-life. I don’t know why you can’t accept that.
“Do you agree the opposite is also true?” Yes, I agreed with our going into Afghanistan, which actually had some connection to 9/11, unlike Iraq. “When US troops get bogged down in Darfur under President Obama, will casualties still be a concern?” Of course, though I am not as concerned about casualties when there is actually a justifiable war — again, as in Afghanistan, or, as you note, in Kosovo. “Was Bush wrong to stop genocide in Iraq?” I’m sorry, are you under the misimpression that we went into Iraq to stop genocide? Might want to review history there.
“In your war calculus, you forgot: Number of Iraqis no longer brutally murdered by Saddam.” And how many were being murdered by AQI before our war? How rampant were roadside car bombs in 2002?
No doubt Saddam was responsible for many deaths, but how many of them since we established our no-fly zones? That is, what number of Iraqi deaths was Saddam responsible for in the years before we invaded?
It wasn’t just when he was an undergraduate, it was as recently as 10 years ago during his membership in the New Party and the attempt to count votes for leftist candidates in both the New Party plus the Democrat Party. This was struck down by the federal Supreme Court, but his radical days are much more recent than his supporters would have us believe.
Don’t forget his promising that he, not we, will choose what we drive, what our thermostats are set at, and how much food we can eat, and that we will all be forced to be volunteers in his internal security force.
Will we ever see a 3rd party candidate break the mold of voting Rep or Dem? What does rep and dem even mean any more.? where does one find the answers? the media definitely will not give a fair report.
what about libertarians? I’ve always heard their only weird hang up is legalizing drugs? what else makes them a ‘bad’ party. all response appreciated.
As a guest on this interesting thread: Why is it that the cutting off of funding to international aid institutions is seen in such a positive light? Is it because, as other posters have pointed out, some issues tend to go together, e.g. anti-abortion / anti-gun control? Do you all agree with Sarah Palin, who is anti-abortion and at the same time anti-sex education? (a rather strange pairing when you think about it.)
The institutions whose funding was cancelled provide more than access to abortions, they provide the means to prevent women from having to make the decision to have one in the first place. They also provide vital information on preventing the spread of AIDS and other diseases.
My quarrel with anti-abortionists is not that I think abortion is a good thing- far from it. My objection is that many of them seem to want to tie their own morality to the cause. “Not only should you not have an abortion, but you must not have it on our terms-by abstaining from behavior that is for me immoral, and not by learning how to avoid pregnancy”. If abortion is always under any circumstances murder, shouldn’t everything possible be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring? I truly cannot comprehend the reasoning of Christians who think like Sarah Palin (for example).
Yours is an excellently reasoned post, Neitwin; I hope you post just these words the next time abortion is discussed on this blog.
Jonathan, you say you are a Lutheran Neitwin says that morality – even in the matter of murder is just a personal thing. How can you resolve that?
Anon @43, there’s nothing inconsistent to resolve, because Neitwin did not say what you say he said. Rather, he sensibly noted that it is inconsisent to oppose abortion while also opposing ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregancies.
The only sure way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is to abstain from sex.
That GUARaNTEES that a woman won’t make a “mistake and be punished with a baby”
– Barack Obama
So i’m curious how is Palin wrong for being anti abortion and anti sex education? The biggest problem with sex education is that it assumes casual sex is OK. Sex becomes just another ‘right’ in America. Turn right on red, turn the faucet on get clean water, have sex with protection and have no baby. The problem with all 3 is that if you’re not paying attention something could go wrong with an unintended consequence.
Who says that all sex education assumes that casual sex is ok? Is all sex before marriage “casual”? If teenagers do not get the benefit of sex education, how will they know what could go wrong? Parents, especially Christian ones, find it notoriously difficult to talk to their children openly about sex. This aside, your argument still makes no sense. What is worse, engaging in premarital sex with information so that a pregnancy or contracting a disease can be avoided, which let’s be serious here, is a behaviour that regardless of any moral training will take place (hate to do it, but look at Palin…) or dealing with unwanted pregnancies, which like it or not will lead to at least some abortions. Anyone who thinks that abortion is murder should be willing to take realistic measures to ensure that they do not occur.
@46. any sex outside of marriage is casual sex. the whole hey let’s try this out and see what happens. if something does happen there is no commitment there. If my husband and I have sex and baby results then it’s God’s will. If we are just 2 people wanting to bang then we’re just doing it casually. if something happens so what. we move on.
a 10 yr has no need to know about contraception. yet education can misconstrued as confirming that sex is OK now that I’m educated.
Abstinence is the ONLY guarentee of no STD’s and no baby.
Christian parents should educate their kids about sex and explain to them when and where appropriate.
So, neitwin are you saying 2 people just deciding to have sex are having serious sex?