[X-post from my Christian blog, hence the Christian references]
Barack Obama took the gloves off in his presidential campaign against Republican contender Senator John McCain, whose campaign has comprised mainly negative attack ads against Obama and crowd-pleasing campaign stump speeches with his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who is the lightning rod for McCain's otherwise lackluster campaign. I've not seen an issue-oriented McCain ad in months, virtually all of his television spots attacking Senator Obama using distortions and childish foolishness such as demanding an apology from the Illinois senator for a quip about "lipstick on a pig." "Enough," Senator Obama finally declared last week. "THIS is what they want to talk about— what they want to spend two of the fifty-five remaining days on." Obama, who has virtually owned the high ground while sinking in the polls beneath McCain's increasingly shrill and sophomoric campaign of attacks. However, by sinking to McCain's level, by releasing childish attack ads, Obama falls into the trap of allowing the Arizona Senator and the Republicans to set the campaign agenda, up to and including forcing Senator Obama to run not against GOP nominee John McCain, but against veep nominee Palin, a moose-shooting political neophyte eerily reminiscent of clueless Texas slacker Governor Bush, selected for political reasons to run with the geriatric McCain and, if elected, be one heartbeat away from the presidency. What the Obama campaign is not saying or is perhaps afraid to say is that a vote for McCain is a vote for Palin for president. It is unlikely Palin would ever have won her party's nomination, let alone a general election. But, should McCain win, the remote possibility of Palin assuming the office of U.S. president becomes more of a probability if not a likelihood. Which is very frightening business, electing a political lightweight being used for her gender as our next president. To this end, I believe Senator McCain has acted selfishly and recklessly, placing this country at potentially great risk at a time of economic uncertainty and war. And this is what utterly perplexes me about conservatives—Christian or otherwise—how they cannot see that. That this man is desperate to win and will stop at, apparently, nothing, up to and including putting a woman not demonstrably more qualified than a Wal-Mart store manager in the Oval office when so very much is at stake.
It is for this reason that I both criticize and empathize with Senator Obama. Taking the low road is a very bad idea. Continuing his gentleman's crusade will surely get him swift-boated like John Kerry. I believe he struck *exactly* the right chord last week, by first mocking Senator McCain's latest "fabricated issue"—the pig thing—and then proceeding to issue a withering admonishment to all of us—Democrat and Republican—that this is simply no time for this kind of foolishness. North Korea is unraveling at the seams with a half-dozen or more unclear weapons, Russia is reasserting itself as an aggressive foreign power, taking advantage of the vacuum left by the US's Iraq quagmire. The economy is spiraling past recession toward depression. People are losing their homes. We are in two wars, American military personnel dying each and every day. And all McCain wants to do is kick Obama in the shins and talk about the pig thing. Christian conservatives, still playing the anti-abortion-anti-gay-anti-stem-cell pedal on the organ, seem energized by Palin, whose policy positions—the little we know of them—do not measurably differ from those of President Bush. This woman is, clearly and obviously, an onion. A naked emperor. She is a political prop used by a desperate John McCain who cannot campaign effectively without her. And I've got conservative Christians running around with silly hats and McCain/Palin placards gleefully supporting this just because these people are pro-life. This is a 72-year old man who looks tired all the time. A man whose ethics have gone south as he lies and connives his way into the White House. Our Christian duty is not necessarily to support the candidate who claims to have our values. Our Christian obligation should be to support the candidate who is most like Christ. I was once a huge John McCain fan. I'd have voted for him had he won the GOP nod in 2000. But this John McCain, this 2008 John McCain, makes me so ashamed. I'm not sure how he sleeps at night, and I'm not at all sure what my conservative brothers and sisters in Christ are thinking as they blindly back anybody at all who opposes abortion, missing the much larger picture of a nation in crisis, facing challenges of a kind we have not seen in generations. Not to mention McCain's complete lack of personal ethics, values, and the real likelihood of you folks voting in John McCain but ending up with Suzy Homemaker as the next president of the United States at a time when nuclear conflict and economic collapse are both very real possibilities.. Seriously, what on EARTH are you people thinking.
11 Comments
Life imitating art and vice versa. We're almost inexorably on the path to "Idiocracy"'s America.
Critically thinking, open minded Americans were not enough to prevent a Bush SECOND term and it may happen again this year despite the more tangible ills the nation is currently experiencing.
Unfortunately, by the time the majority of simple America completely understands this it may be too late.
scrawled by Blaquesmith | September 14, 2008 5:45 PM
I don't get the "Obama has owned the high road" sentiment while people chastise McCain. McCain sure did purposely take the lipstick on a pig comment out of context, but Obama has been doing the same thing to McCain for months. Obama and other dems have repeatedly said that McCain wants to keep the war going on in Iraq for 100 years - when McCain said that he would not be opposed to a peacekeeping force in Iraq like we have in German or Korea.
Also, Obama said that "McCain thinks you have to be making 2.5 million dollars to be considered rich. Maybe he was joking, I don't know - but it shows how out of touch he was."
Uh - yes, he was joking, the context was very clear from the Saddleback review. But Obama purposefully takes that qoute to make people think McCain meant something that he didn't.
So yeah, I do not buy that notion that Obama is above traditional politics.
scrawled by Dan Nguyen | September 14, 2008 6:07 PM
This is the first time I've been reading and watching so much about the Presidential campaign and watching it so closely. Took me long enough, but I'm finally just so fed up.
Part of me wonders if 'playing nice' will cost Senator Obama the election. People can't be that blind to the constant lies and half-truths Senator McCain and Governor Palin throw out there. But it seems like a lot are. And that scares me.
scrawled by David | September 14, 2008 11:37 PM
"That this man is desperate to win and will stop at, apparently, nothing, up to and including putting a woman not demonstrably more qualified than a Wal-Mart store manager in the Oval office when so very much is at stake."
Heh-heh. Years ago, George W. Bush struck me as someone who might have been okay for a Wal-Mart store manager but not as a President, and, well, look what happened... Religious conservative leadership and rank-and-file folks alike have long ago settled on abortion (make illegal)/gays (make illegal)/guns (always legal) as their dealbreakers, it would take a drastic internal cultural shift for that to change, and in these days of megachurch proliferation or pulpit rhetoric about Iraq being "God's War", I don't see it happening..
scrawled by Christopher Currie | September 15, 2008 1:19 PM
Priest,
Since you asked, here is EXACTLY what on Earth I am thinking.
Let's look at your list of issues:
1. North Korea is unraveling at the seams with a half-dozen or more unclear weapons - Agreed
2. Russia is reasserting itself as an aggressive foreign power - Agreed
3. taking advantage of the vacuum left by the US's Iraq quagmire.- Disagree, not a quagmire but a necessary step to exert influence in a strategically critical region to defend and extend our national interest.
4. The economy is spiraling past recession toward depression. - Disagree
5. People are losing their homes.- True, but irrelevant. Not a problem the federal govt should be trying to fix. 1/3 of homeowners don't have a mortgage. 8% of mortgage owners are defaulting, but a percentage of those are mortgages on 2nd and 3rd homes. Not a catastrophe. Keeping FNMA in business is enough to make sure those markets continue to fucntion.
6. We are in two wars, American military personnel dying each and every day. - Agreed
So we agree on some things, disagree on others. Fair enough so far?
All I have heard from the Obama campaign is their plan to tax more and spend more on domestic programs. How will that solve any of the things we agree on? How will universal health care stop Russia? Or North Korea? Or help the economy? How will raising taxes do those things?
In fact, they won't. He has no workable plan for anything you described. His background and experience hasn't equipped him to solve those problems. He's a lawyer for crying out loud, when have you ever known a LAWYER to solve anything? And all his influences are Marxist at BEST; when has that ever worked? Centrally planned and controlled economies are a DEATH sentence. As far as I can tell, that is what he is proposing.
As far as abortion/pro life; please explain to me how I should vote if I TRULY believe that abortion is murder? Where should that issue rank in terms of all the other issues you list? Above people losing their homes but below a belligerent Russia? How about ahead of Russia but below a nuclear Korea? Please, tell me where it belongs in the scheme of things, given my CONVICTION that abortion is murder.
Gay marriage? Don't care. Stem cell research? Great, just don't use embryros. Immigration? Great, as long as you're legal (and we should make it MUCH easier to come here legally)
So, as a conservative Christian I place high importance on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, starting with the First Amendment and not excluding the Second Amendment. I think we are called by Christ to love one another, and to especially protect the innocent.
By putting Palin on the ticket, McCain is at least paying LIP service (heh) to the things I think are true and important; limited federal goverment, low taxes, reduced government spending and regulation. I think he is no more or less corrupt than Obama or Biden (or any other politician for that matter) and with Palin I can at least HOPE for a place at the table with policy discussions.
I believe the average American, as dumb as he can be, knows better how to spend his money, educate his children, and live his life than a bright, well educated, well meaning politician living in DC does.
I think McCain/Palin come CLOSER to that belief than Obama/Biden; and so they will hopefully legislate and support policies in line with that belief. I believe Christ called us to lives of individual responsibility and personal liberty; nothing about Senator Obama strikes me as particularly Christ like.
Regards
scrawled by Tony Muhlenkamp | September 15, 2008 3:32 PM
Tony--
I don't know where this "Obama's gonna tax you!" nonsense comes from. CBS just did the Pepsi challenged between Obama and McCain tax plans, with the Obama plan giving middle class more relief than McCa. But this is a dumb argument because NEITHER plan is gonna be enacted: Congress is gonna meddle. This is what bugs me about these campaigns: the president CANNOT raise your taxes. The president CANNOT lower your taxes. The president CANNOT ban abortions. The president CANNOT ban gay marriage. It's what the Conservatives do: rely on us to forget how the government actually works, that all the campaign promises in the world mean absolutely nothing because, regardless of who wins, it'll be deal-a-meal time in Congress.
I myself am pro-life, but I don’t believe we should be running around imposing our beliefs on everybody else. More to the fact, I think it an abdication of my purpose, to proclaim God's love and God's truth. Having done that, we all are free to accept or reject that truth, and our sense of morality is the expression of that decision.
Jesus Christ did not once try to ban anything. I mean, Tony, they were *crucifying* thieves for Pete's sake. Did Jesus organize a temple boycott? Did He petition the governor? Did he print up campaign bumper stickers?
There's this wonderful list in the fifth chapter of Galatians that outlines the qualities of a Christian, along with another list that outlines the quality of, ahem, non-Christians. I'd challenge you to allow those lists to govern your choices. No man, no woman, is perfect, but the mean-spirited, nasty, unfair tone of the McCain campaign is not the product of Christian conduct. Moreover, elect this guy if you want, it will make no difference--none--on Roe v. Wade.
It is worth noting George W. Bush was pro-life, as was his father before him, Ronald Reagan before him, Richard Nixon before him. Conservative Republicans all ride to the White House on the backs of simplistic fundamentalists believing their promises to overturn Roe v. Wade and install Supreme Court justices who'll end legal abortion. And every time, every single time, it's a lie. And they know it. Without defending Roe v. Wade, it is reasonable to point out the Christian right is taken for a ride by these people every election cycle, campaigning on abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research. And the Christian right falls for it every time. And you know what happens? Nothing. Nothing at all. But you've voted an unscrupulous liar who's used you, played you like a banjo, into office. God's man. What makes him God's man? Why, he's pro-life, of course.
God's man will demonstrate God's attributes.
scrawled by priest | September 15, 2008 11:34 PM
Priest,
I don't know how we can agree on so much, and still disagree. I appreciate your thoughtful response, and it is helping me get some things straight in my head. So with your forbearance:
I agree about taxes, the President, and Congress. My ideal is a 15% flat tax as proposed by Steve Forbes and others over the years. I think it maximizes revenues to the Treasury and minimizes the burdens to the taxpayer. Neither candidate is doing that for me.
I don't try to impose my morals on others, but I get worried when we accept immoral behavior as normal. At the Federal level we shouldn't ban, nor should we facilitate, abortions. Roe v Wade is bad law, and the whole issue needs to be turned back over to the states. I personally think the law is irrelevant in this instance, that we need to ask God to work in people's hearts so NO ONE wants an abortion. Then it won't matter if it is legal or not. Until then, the Federal government needs to get out of the racket.
I don't get the sense that McCain/Palin are trying to impose their morals on anybody. I think she has stated her beliefs, but also made sure her actions are in line with the Constitution. I also haven't caught the mean-spirited,unfair, nasty tone of the McCain campaign. Just the opposite, but it could be self selective reading on my part.
I'll read Galatians, but trust you to tell me how well Obama/Biden fits the bill versus McCain/Palin. In the meantime, do me a favor and read "Vision of the Anointed" and "Conflict of Visions" by Thomas Sowell. He expresses some of these ideas far better than I can.
I agree that the Republican Party has consistently taken advantage of conservatives. But what is our alternative? My fear is that the Democrats will marginalize conservatives and even further polarize the voting/taxpaying/working populace. For the record, my candidates over they years have been Ron Reagan, Harry Browne, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul. With one exception, I cannot get these guys elected dogcatcher, so I have to go with what I can get.
Bottom line for me is this. Generally speaking, the liberals/progressive mindset seems to be that people are worthless, but society is perfectable. This is a HUGE contradiction, but it boils down to people cannot be trusted to do the right thing with their own money, children, jobs, faith, guns, etc. Just turn everything over to the government and you will be taken care of. I don't think that has worked very well.
Generally speaking, conservative/libertarian mindset seems to be that people are flawed, but still valuable. So the rules need to be written so that the majority of the people can be responsible for the majority of issues in their life, AND the majority of people can be trusted to provide and care for the people that need help. I think this works reasonably well when we give it a chance.
Today, I think Obama is more liberal/progressive and McCain is more conservative/libertarian (especially since he added Palin to the ticket. Prior to that, hard to tell them apart.) But it is a matter of degrees on the continuum.
I grant you McCain might be lying to me, and that worries me. It also worries me that Obama is telling me the TRUTH about what he plans to do. I am really worried that they will both tend to concentrate power in DC and create an ever more authoritarian political system. All I can do is try and find and vote for the people that will move us (however incrementally) away from that point.
God Bless
scrawled by Tony Muhlenkamp | September 16, 2008 8:16 AM
McCain *is* lying to you. First, and foremost, the guy is a moderate. He has conservative views and perhaps conservative values, but the guy is not a blue-blood neocon, which is why his own party lynched him last time. This time, he's the only guy you got who can possibly beat Obama.
I like Ron Paul. I think Alan Keyes is a nut job. 15% flat tax? Sign me up. Special interests would NEVER allow that to pass, but, yeah, baby.
Abortion: the Roman state was killing *grown-ups.* Girls, aged 14 and 15, given in marriage who were found to not be virgins were dragged back to their father's doorsteps and stoned to death. This is in the Levitcal code. Jesus did not try and change the government. You want to fight abortion? Create disciples. Stop trying to do at the ballot box what you've failed to do at the pulpit. The politicization of religion has nothing--zero--to do with Christ or His ministry. There is absolutely no biblical model for it. And voting for someone so completely disingenuous as McCain on the basis of Christian duty is entirely wrongheaded.
As for the tone of McCain's campaign: I'll respect your view because arguing over whether or not John McCain is running a negative campaign is a lot like arguing over whether or not a turkey gobbles. It's a waste of bandwidth.
What's remarkable to me, however, is my own naïveté. Based on your posts, I'm starting to get it: I've been accusing conservatives of being disingenuous and perhaps stupid. You're obviously not stupid, and your thoughtful points seem to suggest you're earnest in your views and are not just holding up the party line.
So, now I'm *really* scared, beginning to suspect conservatives aren't just *saying* things like Sarah Palin is qualified to be our next president. They actually *believe*t that. Which just blow my mind. I mean, I've been thinking, conservatives know this is a hollow argument and they're just embarrassing themselves. But that may not be the case.
Which I find all the more frightening.
If she's ready, let' see her no Meet The Press. If McCa is the better man, let's see him get out from under Palin's apron.
These people are *lying.* These people are *evil." Will Obama pass the Galatians test? Probably not. I'm not talking taking abut a moral test, I'm talking abut personal *qualities*. And they will know you are my disciples by the love you show one for another. McCain was a guy I deeply admired. I don’t now who THIS guy *is.* And that you apparently don’t think he's running a nasty, divisive campaign just scares the crap out of me.
scrawled by priest | September 17, 2008 8:15 AM
Hey Priest,
This is kind of fun. Don't be scared, really. Here's why.
1. I am not defending McCains campaign tactics, nor am I attacking Obamas. I think nasty, divisive campaigns have been the norm in this country since the time of Adams, Jefferson and Hamilton (none of whom could stand one another apparently). Consequently, I don't watch much news and haven't seen many of the ads or speeches. My sources are blogs, online news, and editorials. So I might just not have seen or heard FIRST HAND the tactics you are referring to. If I had, I might agree that they are nasty or divisive. So don't let that scare you.
2. Earnest support for McCain/Palin shouldn't scare you. Being earnest, I am willing to concede when I am wrong. As I tell my conservative friends that are afraid of an Obama presidency; maybe we needed Carter before we were ready for Reagan. In your case, maybe we need Palin before we are ready for Hillary? (There are some conservative theorists speculating that Hillary has come to the same conclusion, and is actively subverting Obama just to pave her way for 2012. Isn't that fun? You should subscribe to "To the Point News" just to see what intelligent conservatives are talking about.)
If everything you say about McCain/Palin turns out to be true, then earnest,intelligent voters will figure it out and look for solutions. You just have to be patient. If you're right, it won't be the first time we elected someone who wasn't qualifed to the office (although we might not agree on EXACTLY who has and hasn't been qualified) and it won't be the last.
scrawled by Tony Muhlenkamp | September 17, 2008 11:14 AM
The Jimmy Carter comparison is not an altogether unfair one. Both Obama and Carter are intellectual born-again types. I admire Obama's reluctance to mud wrestle (though he has released ads I wish he hadn't), but I understand the pressure he's under: people, viscerally, emotionally, want him to punch back, when waiting out this Palin/Pig Thing nonsense was the adult way to go. I feel Obama trying to be an adult, as Carter was. But the Iranians were scared to *death* of Reagan, and for good reason. I disagreed with Reagan's policies, but gosh I admired the man. And he wasn't playing with the Ayatollah: had those hostages been killed, Reagan would have carpet-bombed Tehran, and I think they *knew* it.
Ironically, I believe Carter was *right* but Reagan was *effective*, if that makes any sense. I have similar reservations about Obama. I like McCain personally, and, the little I can hear of his policies don’t particularly impress nor alarm me. I'm afraid of his age, seriously, and I'm unhappy about his running mate. And I really dislike the campaign he's running, which I believe is beneath him.
Had McCain stuck to the gentleman's tone he begin with (remember his ad, "War"? Scared the snot out of me because he was SUCH a dad in that ad, so much the grown-up, I though he'd be clobbering Obama), who knows, you and I might be on the same page. But I sorely dislike this campaign, and I'm terrified of the idea of the Moose Hunter In Chief.
scrawled by priest | September 17, 2008 1:54 PM
Hey Priest,
I haven't seen you post anything to your blog lately so I am hoping you are too busy and too happy to do any blogging. I just reviewed our thread from Sept 2008; and a year later it still holds up. I'm curious about your reaction to President Obama AND the Congress so far in 2009.
I hope you are well,
Tony Muhlenkamp
scrawled by Tony Muhlenkamp | October 6, 2009 10:57 AM