I received an absentee voting ballot with these two options: "For the proposition - Yes" & "Against the proposition - No". Hmm. 1 hour ago
@jogillian It's good to hear they weren't cussing me. (Well, I guess you could've just left that part out!) 1 hour ago
I will soon have 125 History of Philosophy papers to grade. How many will start with "Throughout time brilliant thinkers wondered about..."? 2 hours ago
In the last two debates McCain and Palin said Obama was naive for saying he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea without preconditions. Obama and Biden have responded by saying that those remarks were taken out of context and that Obama said he would seek high level, non presidential, diplomacy. Well thank God for the internet.
The USA Today has the relevant quotes from the Obama conference call in which these remarks were made (you can read it here). During this conference call Obama said, “If I sit down with the leader in Iran, I will send him a strong message that Israel is our friend, that we will assist in their security and that we don’t find nuclear weapons acceptable… That’s not going to be a propaganda coup for the president of Iran.”
Here Obama said he would meet with Iran and that doing so would not be a coup for the president of Iran. I don’t know how else to take “If I sit down with the leader of Iran.” I’m not sure how “I” can be misconstrued. In light of this the question he is asked,
“Would you be willing to separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” To this question Obama responded, “I would.”
Feel free to read the linked article and see everything in context and then make your own honest decision as to whether or not Obama meant he himself would meet with these leaders or if he would have high level diplomats do it.
If he misspoke, that’s fine, but come out and admit it as misspeak. But please don’t insult my intelligence by saying he was referring to high level diplomats.
I recently read on an Economist blog that the Matthew 25 Network (www.matthew25.org) has decided to endorse Barack Obama. This group’s name is a nod to Matthew 25: 35-40. The portion of this passage on their website is “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink… ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these my brethren, you did for me.”
I was immediately interested in learning more about this organization because I thought it odd that a seemingly Christian group would be so proud to announce that they have decided to endorse someone with such a pro-abortion record. Their website states that their values are “promoting life with dignity, caring for the least of these, strengthening and supporting families, stewardship of God’s creation, working for peace and justice at home and abroad and promoting the common good.”
I guess it’s just not clear to me how Obama fits that profile, at least with his record on abortion. How exactly does supporting the legality of abortion promote life with dignity for the unborn? Wouldn’t an unborn child be “the least of these”? After searching around a bit more, the Matthew 25 Network was just launched as a Federal Political Action Committee (PAC). Contrary to appearance, this is not some Christian non-profit working on the behalf of some Christian cause. This is a political organization launched with the sole purpose of endorsing Obama.
Now there are plenty of other groups that have endorsed Obama (e.g. Hamas, Moveon.org). One of the groups I would like to draw attention to is NARAL Pro-Choice America (www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html). This organization, unlike Matthew 25 Network, has existed for some time and has an agenda besides just endorsing Obama. This group was founded in 1968 as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. After those laws were indeed repealed, they changed their name to National Abortion Rights Action League, then to National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. And now they are NARAL Pro-Choice America.
What I find interesting is the reason why NARAL chose to endorse Obama. NARAL scores politicians on their pro-choice voting record and in 2005, 2006, and 2007 Obama scored a 100%. That means that in three years Obama has never voted against one of the leading abortion-rights group’s agenda. On their website they even have quotes from Obama that, to them, justify their decision to endorse him. (In one of his quotes he even brags that he’s scored a 100% with both NARAL and Planned Parenthood.)
So what is the point of comparing these two groups. The point is this. One group was formed as a PAC with the sole purpose of having a Christian-sounding group endorse Obama. They have no other agenda. The other group clearly has an agenda and has had it for a long time. This agenda is counter to Christianity at a variety of levels, but this group believes that Obama is the best person to further that agenda.
Does a group’s decision to endorse Obama mean he agrees with that group? Of course not, but it should make someone stop and think about why such a group would want Obama to be president. The fact that he’s never voted against their agenda should at least make Christians and non-Christian anti-abortionists stop and think about the ramifications of him becoming president. This is especially true since the appointment of another Supreme Court Justice is highly likely in the next term and several of the more recent high profile cases have been decided 5-4.
Hillary Clinton recently sent an email out to her campaign staff and supporters announcing that she will formally concede to Barack Obama. Today you will hear all the political talk shows discuss whether or not Obama will, or should, nominate Clinton as VP. I’d like to make two brief comments about Clinton’s email and Obama’s upcoming decision about his running mate.
First, one of the things that haunted Clinton this entire race was that many people did not feel like they knew what her own position was on various issues. Instead, it seems as if Clinton was willing to change her position according to whatever the current polls revealed about the people she was going to visit next. Now this is probably over exaggerated by the media, but I’m starting to think that the media is right. For example, in the email she sent out this morning Clinton writes,
“I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.”
Notice that she doesn’t say she will keep faith with the issues important to her, but the issues important to you. I think people want to vote for someone that truly believes in the things they believe in and not someone that will just support those things just because it will win an election.
On to Obama. Obama’s message this entire campaign is “Change You Can Believe In.” For this reason alone he cannot have Clinton as his VP. It’d be great for many reasons, but you cannot convince anyone you are about change when you have a Clinton as VP. The Clintons are as entrenched in traditional politics as anyone. If you are running on the platform of change then stay clear of the Clintons. Accept their support and say how great they have been and then move on to some governor that most people don’t know.
Obama’s “Change” platform still might be a difficult sell, even if he avoids Clinton as his running mate. I think John McCain is going to point out over and over the fact that Obama has almost never voted against his own party. How can Obama be about change if he just does what all the other Democrats do? Sure it will be a change from a Republican president to a Democratic one, but that would have happened with Clinton. Obama’s message is that politics is broken and he is the guy to fix it. He is going to have to do a great job explaining why he is about change but has always just done what his Democratic colleagues do.
It is interesting that Obama’s opponent seems to be more about change than he is. McCain has continuously “crossed the aisle” to work with Democrats and has been pummeled by right-wing talk show hosts for it. Many of these issues are what made me not want McCain as the nominee, but nevertheless, he seems much more willing to depart from traditional Republican stances than Obama is from traditional Democratic ones.
Do I think any of this will matter? No I don’t. In fact, I think Obama is going to win because he will successfully link McCain to Bush, the media loves him, he’s a great speaker, and people feel good about themselves when they vote for him. The thought of a young, black politician with almost no experience (compared to others) becoming President is about as close to achieving the “American dream” as one could get.
When Mitt Romney’s presidential bid first began to pick up steam, there was a lot of worry about his ties to the Mormon church. Would Romney’s religious beliefs influence his policies as president? Would the things he learned from the Mormon church influence how he thinks about the world? How could such a smart man attend a church that has certain beliefs that, to many, seem outrageous? Does the Mormon Church’s somewhat questionable past regarding African-Americans indicate that Romney might be hiding his true thoughts about blacks?
These questions, along with many others, were continually raised by political pundits over and over. These were questions that Romney was forced to answer at just about every turn. He took them so seriously that he gave an entire speech on the relationship between his faith and his politics (click here to link to a video of that speech).
If it was acceptable to bring up all these issues concerning Mitt Romney, why is it not acceptable to do the same concerning Barack Obama? Below is a video clip of Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for over 20 years, preaching a sermon that, at the least, demands that Obama answer the same questions, with the same forthrightness, as Romney.
As you watch this short 3 minute video keep in mind the following: this is the man that has been Obama’s pastor for over 20 years. This is the man that Obama prayed with before announcing his nomination just over a year ago. This is the man that baptized Obama’s two daughters. This is the man that Obama considers his spiritual advisor.
If Obama had attended this church 20 years ago and left after a short time, I think this would be a non-issue. But, Obama attended this church, pastored by this man, 20 years ago and has continued to attend it. And keep in mind, Obama is only 46 years old. Wright has had an influence on Obama for just about half of his life. I don’t think it is fair to expect any person to endorse everything his pastor says over 20 years. But can we reasonably believe that every Sunday afternoon, Obama would sit down with his family and disagree with what their pastor has said? For 20 years?
If I’m right, then every American should demand that Obama answer every question we have about this issue. Am I right about this? Is it fair to compare this to Romney? Will the Obama-loving media turn our questions about this into our being racist? Can we still believe Obama’s rhetoric about moving beyond race? Does this at least give us reasons to question his judgment?
How would America in general, and the media in particular, respond if John McCain even had a friend that expressed these ideas directed toward black people? What if it was someone he voluntary associated himself with for over 20 years?
(In case you think this is an isolated incident, peruse some of the related videos on YouTube’s site. You’ll see that Wright thought 9/11 was a punishment for not America’s sins, but for “white-America’s sins” and that instead of singing ‘God bless America’, he thinks we should sing ‘God damn America’.)
Anyone that has been with a “significant other” for some time will have experienced a moment when the drive to some destination is complicated because of a wrong turn or two. Growing up, we often joked that any time it was unclear if we should turn right or left, whatever my mother said we should, we should probably do the opposite. My mother had a knack for directing us the wrong way at crucial moments. Thankfully, we often would just laugh at ourselves for listening to her again when we knew we should do just the opposite.
Others, however, are not as fortunate. Instead of moving on and figuring out , given the wrong turn, what the best course of action is now, they focus on that mistake and never let it go. Instead of saying, “We made a wrong turn, what’s the best thing to do to right the course”, they say, “I told you then that we shouldn’t go this way, now we’re all screwed up; we might as well just go home.”
This latter, annoying, spouse seems strikingly similar to Barak Obama and the war in Iraq. We all know, because he can’t go five minutes without reminding us, that he voted against going to war with Iraq while McCain and Clinton voted for it. What Obama seems to not get is that, we are at war in Iraq right now! Focusing on what we should have done is not going to help us to decide what to do now. Even if we grant that going to war was a mistake, that doesn’t mean the best thing to do is just go home. If it is, give us an argument for it that doesn’t depend on the earlier decision to go.
What Obama needs to do is convince us that the best course of action now is to leave Iraq. That is a completely separate issue from whether we should’ve gone in the first place. If he wants to bring that up in addressing Clinton’s ability to make decisions, that is fine. But, again, that’s different from addressing what we should do in Iraq, given that we are there now.
Obama is fortunate to not have any tough questions from the main stream media because what he says about this just makes no sense. Obama says we should get out of Iraq and focus on Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. He justifies this by saying that going to Iraq diverted our attention from Afghanistan and we need to get back to that original mission. That’s all fine and dandy, except there is one big problem. Al-Qaida is in Iraq right now.
I wish someone would ask Obama just this one question, “Why do you think fighting Al-Qaida in Afghanistan is a good thing, but fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq is a bad thing?” I would love to hear if he could respond to such a question without pointing out that we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq in the first place. What would make things really difficult, if someone in the media would push him on it, is that he’s said that staying in Iraq would be an option if there were Al-Qaida attempting to establish a base there. So, what exactly does he think Al-Qaida is doing in Iraq right now, shopping? (Earlier in the week McCain mocked him on this, and should continue to do so.)
So, am I misreading Obama’s remarks on Iraq and Afghanistan? Am I wrong to think his argument for leaving shouldn’t rely on whether we should’ve gone?
This is a sign in Newberry, South Carolina that points to the nearby towns of Prosperity and Clinton. (Click the photo to direct to the Yahoo page where the photo originated.)
Before you vote for McCain
Please do yourself, and America, a favor. Before you head off to vote on Tuesday, take a few minutes to find out about the following bills that McCain helped write:
After you’ve learned what these are, ask yourself if a traditional, Reagan conservative would support those bills. Keep in mind that the large percentage of Republicans (who should be as close to traditional conservatives as we’ll get) voted against each of them. McCain not only voted against the large number of Republicans, he sponsored the bills!
Another thing to ask yourself is if a traditional, small government, low taxes Republican would have voted against making Bush’s tax cuts permanent. Here again McCain sided with the Democrats and not the majority of Republicans.
You should also consider whether a traditional Republican would have voted in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants (hint, this is the McCain-Kennedy bill). McCain said it doesn’t really matter if you broke the law to get here, pay $3,000 and you’re fine. Now I know that the bill didn’t pass, but we still don’t know what McCain’s actual position is on amnesty. When asked if he would vote in favor of it as President, he said “Well it’ll never come up for a vote.” What? That wasn’t the question. It was a hypothetical question that McCain didn’t seem to understand.
Finally, are you not at least a bit concerned with his support of Justice O’Connor. It seems odd to say “I’ll appoint justices like Alito and Roberts” and then turn around and say “O’Connor was a fine justice” when they are nothing alike. I wonder if the fact that she would have been the deciding vote in upholding McCain-Feingold had anything to do with that comment.
Of course if you’re not a Republican or are a more progressive one, these things might not matter to you. But, if they do, you should seriously consider the above points and ask yourself if McCain is really a Reagan conservative or is just trying to act like one.
(Bias alert: I’m voting for Romney because I think his policies are solid. If you agree with me about McCain then hopefully you also realize that Huckabee has no real shot at winning the nomination and so should vote for Romney too.)
In the above video Mick Huckabee wishes everyone a Merry Christmas and reminds us to not forget that it is a celebration of Christ’s birth. Of course there have been people griping about its exclusive nature (he doesn’t address the beliefs of non-Christians) and one person, Bill Donahue, has even claimed that there is a subliminal attempt to convert people to Christ. This is absurd.
If you haven’t watched the video yet, please do it now. In the back you will see a white bookcase that forms a cross. Apparently, Donahue believes that this was intentional and infers that because of it, Huckabee is trying to advance the Christian cause. This could be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Let’s say that it is a subliminal message. What would that message be? Well, since the video ends with Huckabee blocking out the “cross” I could only surmise that Huckabee is really trying to advance himself as more important than the cross. After all, it was there and then he blocked it out. If you’re willing to grant that Huckabee would try to convey hidden messages in his video, then you’ve got to be willing to go all the way with it. If the cross-shaped bookcase mattered as the “cross” appears, then why wouldn’t it matter as he blocked it out? Because Donahue knows Huckabee would never do that on purpose. Maybe, if all the post-moderns are right and you get to interpret things however you wish, Huckabee is crazy and really thinks he’s more important than the cross. There’s a better chance that Donahue is the one that’s crazy.
This is the sort of nonsense that we are about to get a whole load of as the political season comes into full bloom. Subliminal messages from a presidential hopeful-give me a break.
And just so you know, at this point I’m not backing Huckabee. Right now, my vote’s going to Romney. So this isn’t some attempt to defend “my guy.” This is an attempt to point out how ridiculous some people are when it comes to being politically correct.
This presidential election might as well be labeled as the “Election of Firsts”. We could see the first woman president, the first African American president, the first Mormon president, and the first 160 year old president. Well maybe McCain isn’t that old, but it’s close.
America has come a long way in the last 50 years or so. We are now a much more just society and have recognized that characterizing someone based on their gender, class, religion, or race is a pretty dumb thing to do. That’s why we have laws prohibiting such things in the workplace and educational institutions. I’m happy that we’ve progressed as much as we have, but will be the first to admit that we have a long way to go. The current presidential campaign demonstrates just how far away we are.
When Obama announced his candidacy some within the African American community immediately criticized him for not being “black enough.” Others immediately gave him their support because he would “further the black cause” in America. I hope both of these reactions shock you. Not hiring someone because of his color is obviously wrong. But I’m confused how making someone President of the United States of America because of his color is any better. Remember all the “Hey, Just because we’re the same color doesn’t mean we think the same!” cries? How did that change when it comes to electing the leader of our nation?
It doesn’t stop there though. There are scores of women that have done just the same but instead of throwing their support to Obama, it has gone to Clinton. Why? Because she is a woman.
Now obviously there are men that support Clinton and whites that support Obama. There are also African Americans that don’t support Obama and women that don’t support Clinton. So, please don’t think I’m generalizing that all people of these groups are this irrational. But, there are plenty that are supporting one of these two candidates simply because of his color or her gender. That is absurd.
I wish I could say that it stops there, but it doesn’t. Apparently, many people believe that one’s particular religion is a sufficient reason for either supporting or not supporting a candidate. Among those that support Obama or Clinton for irrational reasons, there are those that are not supporting Romney because he is a Mormon. This is just as irrational. This past week Romney did a wonderful job demonstrating why he would make a great president. He did a masterful job presenting his position on the role of faith in politics, refused to pander to any one particular interest group, and reminded those fellow believers what makes America so great.
In sum:
If you vote for Obama because he’s black, then you’re an idiot.
If you vote for Clinton because she’s a woman, then you’re an idiot.
If you vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon, then you’re an idiot.
If you don’t vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon, then you’re an idiot.
One’s race, gender, or particular religious belief should not have anything to do with whether or not that person is able to lead our country. Can the person work with both sides of Congress to get things done? Will this person garner respect from the international community? How does this person’s moral views line up with yours? Has this person demonstrated an ability to solve problems and resolve pressing situations?
I’d like to think that Oprah has endorsed Obama because she thinks he’s the best for our country and that Barbara Streisand endorsed Clinton for the same, but I honestly doubt that’s the case. I also doubt that Robertson’s endorsement of Guiliani had nothing to do with Romney’s Mormonism.
