Obama, McCain, and acts of compromise
I’ve recently come across several blog entries that raise the question, “Can a Christian, in good conscience, vote for Barack Obama?”, with the main reason for the question being Obama’s pro-choice stance.
This is certainly an important issue, especially seeing as how Obama is gaining an increasing amount of support and acclaim from Christian circles. How can Christians, a significant portion of whom see abortion as nothing short of murder, support a presidential candidate who is very open about his pro-choice stance? The implication seems to be that, in some way, Christians who intend to vote for Obama are making a serious moral compromise that others find unconscionable.
This caused some discussion between Renae and I, as we seek to understand the issues more fully and prepare to vote in the coming months. We want to make our vote “count”, and we want to ensure that we are making the most informed decision possible, whatever that decision might be. But as we thought about it, we came to realization that politics, in any form, involves compromise.
While politics, and the actions of political leaders, are certainly informed and shaped by idealistic absolutes that can lead to intense disagreement—e.g., the constant antagonism between conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats—no political process can survive without some measure of give and take. Especially when you’re dealing with democratic system.
Put simply, there is no perfect candidate available, not for any political office, and there never will be. At some point, your candidate of choice will “let you down” by supporting some issue or stance that, for whatever reason, you are opposed to. Or perhaps they’ll have some character flaw or lifestyle choice that will just drive you crazy, and yet you choose to stick by them.
To that end, I wish to pose this question to those folks who are wondering how Christians can compromise in order to vote for Obama: what compromises, moral or otherwise, are you willing to make by voting for McCain (or someone who is not Obama)?
Certainly there are things about McCain with which you disagree, perhaps even vehemently. If you’ll recall, McCain has received flak from conservative pundits and leaders due to his stances on immigration, terrorism, tax cuts, stem cell research, and so on. Or maybe there are things about his personal life that you find worrisome and troubling, but are willing to overlook. What are they, and how or why do you justify overlooking them?
And there’s a flipside to this question: are there aspects of Obama’s campaign that, if looked at honestly, you can appreciate? Or perhaps there are aspects to his character that you respect. If that’s true, what are you willing to compromise or give up by not voting for Obama?
Comments
Peter T Chattaway
August 5, 2008 11:20pmFWIW, I don’t think you have to “overlook” a candidate’s flaws in order to weigh his merits against another candidate’s merits and find the other candidate wanting.
Obama is not merely just another pro-choice candidate; his stridency on the issue comes dangerously close to being “pro-abortion”, a term I don’t throw around loosely. When he talks about how he does not want his daughters to be “punished” with a baby if they become pregnant, that goes beyond being merely pro-"choice". (If anything, it makes you wonder if he might be *anti*-choice, to the extent that he might discourage his daughter from keeping her baby.)
Some people argue that the abortion issue doesn’t matter because the Republicans haven’t really done anything for the pro-life cause anyway. But as First Things pointed out a few wees ago, that is simply not true. And while McCain may or may not make the situation any better, Obama has already publicly committed himself to making it worse.
As for the question of how abortion ought to be weighed against other issues… I believe Catholics would argue that an element of “proportionality”, or some such word, has to come into play here. You can hold your nose and vote for the pro-abortion guy—the pro-death guy—if you believe that the other issues he brings to the table are more important than the lives and deaths of the unborn children. What those issues would be, exactly, is hard to say, but it’s doubtful that affirmative action, quasi-socialist tax policies and a ban on oil drilling, or whatever it is Obama claims to believe in this week, would be more important than the life-or-death stuff, by their reckoning.
FWIW, I like the thought experiment Alan Jacobs proposed: Could I vote for this guy if he were pro-slavery? What issues would be more important than slavery, such that I could justify voting for the pro-slavery guy?
(BTW, last I checked, Jacobs said he definitely couldn’t vote for Obama, but he wasn’t sure he could vote for McCain either, because of other issues. So he might vote for someone else altogether. Jason, you said that you want to make your vote “count”, so does that mean you are limiting your options to the two main candidates?)
charity
August 5, 2008 11:39pmGood thoughts, Jason. Thanks for sharing.
Dennis
August 6, 2008 11:56amIgnoring the merits of the candidates or the morality of abortion, I’m at a loss for what the President can do to affect the fundamentals either way. The best any pro-life advocate can ask for is the introduction of legislation that makes it somewhat more difficult for certain individuals to obtain some or all abortions or possibly the veto of legislation that makes it easier for certain individuals or types of abortions, but barring federal legislation that bans all types for all women, not a whole lot is going to change. And if McCain is a states rights advocate, that sure ain’t gonna happen. The best you could expect is some type of reversal of Roe v. Wade that will send everything back to the states, and you can rest assured places like NY and CA aren’t going to legislate universal bans. I haven’t really followed his position, but I’m guessing McCain is the kind of guy that will say abortion is okay in cases of rape and incest, which always struck me as the oddest position to take in the debate. Hey, either the life is sacred or it isn’t. There simply is never going to be a candidate that will take the position necessary to legitimately protect every unborn child in America. (Apologies for how badly that came out, but I hope the points are apparent enough)
Jason
August 6, 2008 12:57pmFWIW, my primary intention was not to be start up yet another comparison between Obama and McCain. Sure, that’s going to be somewhat inevitable, but there are plenty of places that have already done this, and far more thoroughly than I could.
I’m simply much more interested in what, if anything, McCain supporters see as things that they’ll need to compromise in order to “stomach” having McCain run the U.S. for the next four years. It’s more of a response to the two blog entries I mentioned in the entry, and the sentiments that I’ve been picking up on all over the place concerning Christians who support Obama.
Yeah, pretty much. I just don’t know of any third party candidates that I’d consider viable.
Agreed. Of course, that’s where it gets sticky because the best you can do is make abortion less frequent. And everyone has different idea as to how to bring that about. One might think of passing legislation and more governmental influence. Another might encourage something more “grass roots”, affecting a sea change in other, surrounding issues that link to abortion in various ways and therefore affect it.
Matt Ralph
August 6, 2008 1:33pmI think we as Christians need to look deeper than a candidate’s stance on abortion at where he or she stands on other pro-life issues like health insurance, education, war and elder care among others.
Otherwise, voting for or against a candidate based solely on his or her stance on abortion narrows the definition of the word life in a pro-life stance to only unborn children.
As Christians we need to be promoting life in all of its forms, not simply opposing abortion. Doing that in the voting booth involves compromise and should be a thoughtful decision not done simply by reading a candidate’s position on abortion.
Dennis
August 6, 2008 1:36pmNicely said, Matt.
Peter T Chattaway
August 6, 2008 2:11pmJason wrote:
“FWIW, my primary intention was not to be start up yet another comparison between Obama and McCain. . . . I’m simply much more interested in what, if anything, McCain supporters see as things that they’ll need to compromise in order to ‘stomach’ having McCain run the U.S. for the next four years.”
Gotcha. FWIW, I don’t think I was comparing Obama and McCain, per se; indeed, I said almost nothing about McCain, apart from acknowledging that he happens to be Obama’s rival. Rather, I was taking the abortion ball and running with it, and explaining why, in some people’s minds at least, it is much more difficult to “compromise” on abortion than it is on other issues (just as it was once very difficult to “compromise” on slavery, etc.).
Ironically, after all the stuff about Obama that’s been written here, if I were to list the things about McCain that I didn’t like, that *would* begin to seem like “comparing” the two of them, to me. :)
“I just don’t know of any third party candidates that I’d consider viable.”
Well, at least, if you want your vote to “count”, you get to boil your choice down to a simple either-or. :)
It’s not so easy in my country, where there are three major parties in most provinces (and four in Quebec). And one of those parties was actually formed a couple of years ago by merging two other major parties. Making my vote “count” has always been a tricky business. (If I want Candidate A to run the country, but I know that most people in my riding are split between Candidates B and C, do I shift the balance between B and C, or do I cast a vote for A in the hope that his party will have a significant enough presence in Opposition?)
Matt Ralph wrote:
“I think we as Christians need to look deeper than a candidate’s stance on abortion at where he or she stands on other pro-life issues like health insurance, education, war and elder care among others.”
Education is not a “life” issue. If I had to choose between letting people die and letting people lack an education? No question, really.
Even “health insurance” is debatable. Is there really a single “pro-life” position on that issue? Really? I mean, on abortion, the answer is simple: deliberately killing innocent people is bad. But on “health insurance”, there are all sorts of economic models one can bring to the table.
War, I will grant, is definitely a life-or-death issue. And that is why it is important to keep in mind the lives that are saved by war, as well as the lives that are lost by war. Sometimes doing nothing is worse than doing something. So, as with health insurance, so with war: there is no single pro-life position; there are all sorts of trade-offs, and all sorts of tactical options.
(Unless, I suppose, you’re a hardcore pacifist—but no one running for Commander-in-Chief can afford to be that; and indeed, given that the first duty of any government is defending the nation and its citizens, one can always ask whether hardcore pacifists should be voting for government officials in the first place. Their very involvement in the process is, itself, a “compromise”—to bring us back to the topic of this post!)
willy
August 6, 2008 6:03pmIf you haven’t already checked out Shane Claiborne’s latest book, Jesus For President, you really should. It answers a lot of the questions you pose. Amazing/though provoking book and fun to read (in the style of House of Leaves). It would be interesting to hear what you have to say about.
eriol11
August 7, 2008 4:41amTwo things:
What about general morality? Nominally pro-life administrations such as the current one and Reagan’s were some of the most corrupt in US history (and if you want I can back up my statement). After seeing what Bush has done being lampooned by Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert I know I don’t want another four years of that kind of stupidity, much less another eight.
And I don’t think that a pro-life president could affect a reduction in the numbers of abortions. I don’t think that it’s his place and that the whole racket would simply submerge. Yes, doctors could be arrested then, but would illegal abortion change the way our culture views life?
As far as I can tell, I don’t know. I simply know that I don’t want another President who’ll do the good, nominal pro-life things, but only as a photo op, but who otherwise would be such a total screw up we would long for the days of Warren G. Harding and Herbert Hoover.
Also, I agree with Matt, education is a “life” issue. There’s a reason why there were laws that made it illegal to teach slaves to read, and translators and printers were killed and books were burned, since by being educated people can see just what kind of shape this world is in, and how it got that way, and who are the ones responsible.
Mike
August 7, 2008 10:49amSince I was one of the guys linked to, I should probably weigh in here…
On some level, the comparison is necessary. If both of them were ardently pro-choice, and the only difference was that one thought jamming scissors into the skull of an unborn baby is OK, while the other thought the only “moral” method of killing the child was to burn/poison it to death with a saline injection, there wouldn’t be too much discussion on the topic and we would have to move on to other points of comparison.
As it stands, we have a guy who has voted three times against an Illinois law preventing infanticide, and another guy who is, at least marginally, pro-life. So, if abortion is a paramount issue (as I think it is), we have a meaningful point of distinction between McCain and Obama that should influence our vote.
I completely agree with Matt that “health insurance, education, war and elder care” are also “life” issues (war is a touchy one, as the vast majority of Christians throughout history have not been pacifists and have believed in the principle of a just war). In fact, I think it is embarrassing that the church has abdicated so much of its role in serving Christ by serving the oppressed.
Conceding that the church should be doing more on these issues, I think it is also worth pointing out that there are no laws preventing the church from caring for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, etc. However, the federal precedent under Roe prevents any limitation being placed on the availability of abortions to anyone who wants them. States can’t decide on this issue. Cities can’t. Churches can’t. The Supreme Court has decided that it will use its influence to guarantee that people will not be prosecuted for murdering children. That, it seems to me, is a bigger issue than whether or not the state is giving money to people who don’t have jobs.
I would also argue that there is very little to go on (at least biblically) that says the state is obligated to (and maybe even whether or not it has a right to) care for the poor by taking money, through taxes, from some people to give it to others. But, that’s a whole different discussion.
So, to answer your most direct question, what am I having to compromise to vote for McCain? I don’t like his stance on illegal immigration. I think he is, like Obama, too much in favor of high taxes and big government. I think his infidelity and divorce from his first wife is appalling. However, to quote Phyllis Schlafly, “The alternative is so bad we must support John McCain.” When it comes down to the lesser of two evils, granting illegal immigrants amnesty seems less evil to me than chopping up babies in utero.
Dennis
August 7, 2008 11:37amI remain convinced that this is an issue that will continue to hinge on the Supreme Court, not the Oval Office. The best you could hope from McCain is that he’d try to appoint a court justice conservative enough on this issue to assist in the overturn of Roe v Wade at some time in the indistinct future. Obama at worst would likely obstruct restrictions such as parental rights notification and could appoint a justice liberal enough to protect Roe v Wade. But here’s the rub: Reagan appointed O’Connor and Kennedy; HW Bush appointed Souter. Is anyone going to say that McCain is more conservative than either of those Presidents? As far as I’m concerned this remains a presidential non-issue. And to finally answer the question, I’ve got issues with my preferred candidate for sure, but I have not discovered enough good things about his opponent to even consider him viable for my vote. I’m afraid there just isn’t a lot to weigh this go around. In general I’d have to say that I’d compromise on fiscal issues in support of social ones, but not vice-versa.
almostcool
August 7, 2008 2:06pmI assume that none of the pro-life people above support the death penalty, am I right?
Dennis
August 7, 2008 2:10pm@almostcool: no death penalty support here. all life is sacred!
Aaron
August 7, 2008 2:48pmI can’t really answer you question directly Jason, because I’m not a McCain supporter. I could give you a laundry list of reasons why I don’t like McCain, but that’s not really what you’re asking. But I would like to touch on something else that’s been discussed here…
I agree with the people saying there’s very little any President can/will do to eliminate abortion. It’s simply not going away. Even if McCain is elected, and nominates a conservative enough justice or two, to tilt the Supreme Court enough to overturn Roe v. Wade, the choice still goes back to the states.
Very few, if any, states will criminalize abortion. And for those that do, people will still do what they deem necessary, if that means traveling to another state, or getting it done somewhere locally, illegally (and unsafely mind you)… they will.
In short, abortion rights will never go away completely. You know this, we all know this.
The only reasonable and ultimately effective way to approach this is to try to minimize the number of women put in the situation where they may consider abortion—through health and social education and outreach. This is the solution Barack Obama overwhelmingly embraces.
This is a fantastic opportunity for Christians to show the world they are not single-issue voters. That they are more than the trucks that drive around town with dead fetuses on them. Is this the only thing Jesus spoke about? What about poverty? What about genocide? What about quality of life? What about our civil liberties? What about electing a President who won’t cost us the lives of an untold number of innocent people through anymore unnecessary wars. Would Jesus have ever launched a preemptive war? By conservative accounts 10’s of thousands of people have died and many more have been injured over the past five years in Iraq (4,100 American military deaths/30,000 wounded, fwiw). How about pouring that respect for life into an issue where real change can be made, and real lives can actually be saved? I’m sure the victims in Darfur would love some of this attention.
I understand the image of dead babies is a strong one, but you have to elevate yourself above graphic images and embrace the nuance and reality of the situation. Stop falling under the spell of a party that pretends to care about you every four years and then sweeps you under the rug until the next election. The GOP will never take these “culture war” issues off the table by actually doing anything to change them.
What would they use to divide us then?
Mike
August 7, 2008 3:26pmWow. Waaaay too much to respond to in just one comment, but I’ll do my best.
@Aaron: By conservative accounts (from the CDC, which admits many abortions go “untracked"), 857,000 babies were aborted in 2000 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm). Even if the abortion rate has dropped by 25%, which it hasn’t, that means that 3.9 MILLION babies have been aborted in the five years since the start of the Iraq war. Even Rosie O’Donnell’s numbers on deaths in Iraq don’t come anywhere near that number.
I also disagree with your assertion that “abortion rights” will never go away, and the implication that this means we should stop opposing it. Murdering of full-sized humans will also never go away, but we, as a collective society, continue to oppose murder.
@almostcool: 1. The Bible explicitly grants the right/duty of capital punishment to the State (Romans 13). Furthermore, the death penalty actually affirms the value of life by demonstrating to the public that anyone who would take a life will have their life taken from them. If I were to be convicted of stealing $500 from you and my penalty was a $25 fine, that would send a message that your possessions aren’t worth much. If I were to be convicted of taking a life and only spent 8.2 years in jail (the average for a single-victim murder), that would send a message that the life I took wasn’t worth much. I would also add that having pity for inmates on death row while ignoring the slaughter of children seems a lot more inconsistent to me.
@Dennis: Yes, abortion is a Supreme Court issue since they unilaterally ruled in 1972 that states don’t have the right to decide this one for themselves. Where do these judges come from? Presidential appointments. So, it’s not like the SCOTUS is just some arbitrary bunch of folks. The President has a great deal of say in who makes up the court. Reagan and Bush both got a few appointments wrong, I get that. But, to say that abortion should not be an issue in presidential politics is naive at best, and more likely an excuse to ignore what should be a central issue for Christian voters.
Aaron
August 7, 2008 3:56pm@ Mike
Ah yes, well then you’ve brought us to the slippery slope of when that cluster of cells becomes a “baby,” and how/when that “baby” equates to a walking/talking person.
(And also, by default, to the end of the conversation really, since we will never agree on when that happens.)
I didn’t say anyone should stop opposing abortion. I said we should look for a smarter, more effective way to reduce it, beyond criminalization.
I’m not sure how you get the Bible endorsing the death penalty out of Romans 13, reading it right now, that’s quite a leap. And luckily, for me (and billions of other people on the planet), the Bible has no relevance to this discussion.
“The death penalty actually affirms the value of life”? That’s a hoot.
Aaron
August 7, 2008 4:20pm“Romans Chapter 13” by Pastor Chuck Baldwin
“It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, “What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone.” Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let’s be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html
Jason
August 7, 2008 4:41pmEarlier, you raised some good questions, such as did Jesus speak on issues like poverty and war. You asked “Would Jesus have ever launched a preemptive war?” Well, most Christians would say that the only way for them to come up with an authoritative answer to that question, and others like it, is to go to the Bible and see what, if anything, Jesus had to say about the issue.
So, unless you were asking rhetorical questions, I’d say the Bible is relevant to this discussion, especially if you’re calling Christians out—simply because it shapes, informs, and defines how Christians see and wrestle with the issue of abortion, not to mention countless other issues (e.g., war, poverty).
And FWIW, Romans 13:4 does speaks to the issue of the death penalty:
I think the key bit there is about not bearing the sword for nothing. In the Bible, when you see a reference to bearing the sword like this, it often refers to bearing the sword in judgment and death. Or to put it another way, why else would one bear the sword within the context of being an “agent of wrath” other than to deal out death upon a wrongdoer, those in need of punishment?
And in reponse to your second comment, the passage in Romans does not say that we should blindly submit to authorities who are obviously unjust, who are flouting their proper, God-given authority.
It’s clear from verse 1 that the Bible teaches that all earthly authority has been established by God, and as such should be respected and obeyed. But that is a double-edged sword for the authorities: the Bible also teaches that earthly rulers should be good stewards of their God-given authority, and should not abuse it or use it in ways not intended by God.
I believe the article you referenced supports that view:
It’s always been understood that Christians should submit to earthly authorities so long as those authorities are “godly” in their duties and the execution of those duties (i.e., acting justly)—so long as those authorities are not a “terror to good works”. However, when an earthly authorities steps out of bounds, then yes, it’s the duty for Christians to humbly, carefully, and peacefully adhere, first and foremost, to the laws of God before submitting to those of the State.
Aaron
August 7, 2008 6:21pmAnd who do you think is having these 4 MILLION abortions? Considering estimates say around 76% of Americans consider themselves Christians (a number that’s steadily declining). I’ll let you do the math.
That’s a verrry slippery slope, if you want to get into the legitimacy of where and when the Bible calls for death and murder. I’m not sure you want to go there.
It may seem like an unfair rhetorical device, but I didn’t say it was irrelevant to the discussion I said it was irrelevant “for me.” I worded it that way intentionally, I probably could have worded it a little more clearly. What I meant by that was basically, you can’t point your Christian morality finger at me, but I can most certainly point it back at you. I feel it’s fair to, at the very least, hold Christians up to their own Christian standards of goodness, especially when they hold those standards to be the ultimate “truth.” At the same time, the Christian take on morality does not apply to me—except in those cases where I choose to agree with and embrace it. It may not sound fair, but that’s one of many benefits of not being religious. :)
I’ll leave it at that, and leave this discussion to the pro-lifers weighing their votes for/against McCain, as that seems to have been the original intent of this post.
charity
August 8, 2008 7:34am“I didn’t say anyone should stop opposing abortion. I said we should look for a smarter, more effective way to reduce it, beyond criminalization.”
This has been the crux of my thoughts. Abortion rates per 1000 women are nearing rates as they were at the Roe V Wade decision and has seen decline through both pro-choice and pro-life administrations. What will keep people from having abortions? The best answer I can come up with is to exhibit God’s love for them by loving them, teach abstinence, teach birth control, and ... did I say love them? How many of us have known people who have seriously thought of having an abortion? I would wager, not many.
Gary
August 8, 2008 9:11amThere are so many things I don’t like about McCain, I can’t take the time to list them. I will vote for McCain as a tactic; not because I think he is anywhere an ideal candidate.
My point is that when you are comparing causes to trade away for the advancement of others, Abortion is far and away the dominating issue until Roe-Casey is gone, and this is particularly true given the impending changes in the composition on the Court.
What do I pass on that I value by not voting for Obama? I confess that I really don’t like the guy—he appears to be substanceless to me. I was taught long ago to be suspicious about people who are “all foam, no beer.” A person whose appeal is not from accomplishment or real values, but is primarily through his appearance, rhetoric, sales polish, is one to distrust, not one to trust. The Bereans were right: Paul was very persuasive and inspirational. Now, lets go home and check the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying is TRUE. Obama appears to fit this warning precisely.
That being said, the one thing that Obama might be able to do, simply because of his race, is to advance racial trust in the US in a deep way. This is an area that the Church has fallen down on. Witness that we still have divisions between “white” churches” and “black churches.” Perhaps Obama could help heal this part of us just by being elected and occupying the office.
But the cost for that is FAR too high. If electing an African-American President will help here, the right thing to do is elect an African-American President who will protect “the least of these,” and not one who will appoint judges who will ensure they never escape the womb.
GY
Aaron
August 8, 2008 10:02amI’m sorry, but if you really believe that Obama has no substance, you’re just buying into the GOP meme, and not trying at all.
The Issues section of Obama’s website has been found, by non-partisan evaluation, to have more substance, more specifics than McCain’s does. Look for yourself. Watch some of Obama’s speeches, not just the clips they show on Hannity & Colmes or Hardball. They are filled with specific plans and ideas.
In the debates during the Democratic primary Obama tried—despite the efforts of the moderators to keep the discussion on the “hot button” topics—to lay out specific ideas. I’m sure he’ll do the same in the general election debates, as long as he doesn’t have to spend the entire debate refuting lies from McCain (Edwards/Cheney debate, anyone?).
Of course you have to strike some balance between the data and the delivery (that’s where Obama excels) which is why it’s great that we have the benefit of content-rich websites to tell us everything we want to know about a candidates stances and plans.
It’s the proto-typical Rovian ploy; attack the candidate where they’re the strongest. Try to plant some seeds of doubt.
Rinse. Wash. Repeat. Shameful.
Matt
August 8, 2008 10:05am“What do I pass on that I value by not voting for Obama? I confess that I really don’t like the guy—he appears to be substanceless to me. I was taught long ago to be suspicious about people who are ‘all foam, no beer.’ A person whose appeal is not from accomplishment or real values, but is primarily through his appearance, rhetoric, sales polish, is one to distrust, not one to trust.”
This sounds an awful lot like a McCain talking point to me. I’d like to meet a politician that doesn’t fit this description.
When our current president was running for office his campaign convinced us all that he was - despite his background of Blue Blood Ivy League educated privelege - a down home steer lassoing Texan who was a born again Christian.
We should always, always, always be suspicious of anyone seeking our votes, not just the ones mudslinging campaign strategists warn us about.
Cody
August 8, 2008 5:35pm@Matt...of course, Obama’s prestigious Harvard law degree, ritzy Chicago neighborhood, and friendships with elitist ex-hippie intellectuals don’t run counter to any of the other aspects of his image that are being emphasized in this campaign, do they?
GW Bush can be both the son of a wealthy family with an Ivy-league degree and a Christian who likes hanging out on the ranch. The real issues come with what these guys actually believe in.
Frankly, I don’t feel like I’m giving up anything by not voting for Obama aside from the historical aspects of his candidacy. The guy is a hardcore liberal trying to package himself as a hopeful, change agent...but we tried liberalism before in this country and I’ll have to pass on part II.
By voting for McCain I AM giving up some principles: I think he’s a lot more left-of-center on the environment than I’d like, he’s certainly not as tough on immigration issues, and he has an alarming way of compromising just when his opponents are on the run (campaign finance, the debacle over judicial nominations). However, he’s at heart a conservative and he’s in favoring of protecting society’s most helpless and innocent members, the unborn. I’d be willing overlook even more things than I am just because of this stance.
Gary
August 8, 2008 11:39pmOne does not gain substance from one’s political promises, or one’s plans. Or how they fill out a checklist. Oh what great programs we will have! As someone pointed out, every politician can make promises and design programs to fill their websites.
One gains substance from one’s experience, one’s demonstration of courage, one’s operation from principle, and so on. How about actually accomplishing something in their life. Tell me what Obama has actually accomplished in his life other than win political office. OK, he graduated from Harvard. I never graduated from Harvard. But not much else.
Bush didn’t have much substance when we elected him either. I’ll give you that.
But he was right on the most important moral issue of our time, and he delivered on that when he had the opportunity (See Roberts and Alito).
I am not a McCain fan. Not one bit. But I will vote for McCain because of one reason: if he loses, Barack Obama will be the guy that picks who will replace Souter, and Stevens, and maybe Ginsburg and maybe Scalia.
As a result, Obama’s stance on abortion will likely lead to the death of millions of babies if he is elected. So I don’t really see any choice but to vote McCain.
Aaron
August 16, 2008 10:33pmObama on the topic of abortion, at tonight’s discussion with Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwSfzntLZCU
Daniel Giesbrecht
August 19, 2008 3:32pmThis is so simple for me.
If a candidate doesn’t understand why abortion should be illegal, they can not possibly have the judgment to deal with the infinite number of other more challenging dilemmas a president is going to face.
You fail the simplest of tests, I see no reason to look deeper.