Election Results

Monday Editorial: Either way, we'll be OK.

And so we come down to the moment we've all been waiting for, tomorrow. Most people have had their mind made up for months, one way or another. I did read yesterday that one in seven voters is not firm in what he or she is thinking.

Just for the record, before it all comes down, I wanted to register my sense that we will be on a better path, no matter who is elected. A lot of people hate both candidates. I think both candidates have something to offer us. I thought I'd share what I personally think are the strengths of both candidates today.

Economy
Most of us recognize deep down that since around October 6, the economic plans of both candidates were drawn deeply into question. After all, who could have predicted 8 years ago that President Bush would sign a 700,000,000,000 nationalization of private debt? Both candidates signed the bill, and both candidates will have to deal with this new reality.

McCain will sign any legislation that the public clamor for, and if things continue to go south, they will clamor for lots of help. He will certainly keep taxes as low as he can in these new realities, and he will take the advice his advisors give him to keep business strong. But he will respond. He is not an economic ideologue. He will do what the public tell him needs to be done, and his advisors say isn't suicide.

Obama will certainly look out for the person most likely to be run over by a depressed economy. Retirees looking to lose their health insurance right now will get health insurance with him, if it is at all possible economically for him to go forward with his plans. Most people will have health insurance available, which I think will bring down costs in the long run, given the degree to which the rest of us already have to pay for those without.

It is a little scary to think that his administration might completely revamp social security, Medicare, and Medicade. But we know that they need to be fixed. It's a little scary, but an administration with him will have the first real shot at really changing the system. It could turn out really good. I know it could also turn out really bad, but not trying anything is surely not a good option either.

Education
I would again say that McCain's strength over Bush here is that he will not pander to the ideologues. One of the reasons certain ideologues are having a hard time with the election is that neither candidate will let them go on doing whatever they want, forcing the ideologies of a few on the many.

A lot of people are spreading fear on what Obama will do with sex education and non-discrimination. Given that pregnancy is rampant in American middle schools and high schools, I think a little training is in order. Children are talking sex even in elementary schools these days given what they've been exposed to. I personally believe the number of abortions will go down more under Obama than they have under Bush, all things being equal. Of course the kind of "good touch, bad touch" thing they would teach in kindergarten has been twisted as usual.

Science and Environment
McCain and Palin have said some things that I don't believe at least he means. I would fear her as President right now, I regret to say. I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as some of you will remember when McCain first announced her, but I don't think she is ready and suspect she is probably ruined for a future in politics if McCain is not elected.

But McCain will pursue environmental issues and alternative technologies. He will not pander to extreme science ideologues like Bush did. I don't know the science of global warming, so I won't pretend to be competent to judge the evidence. But there is a serious problem when an administration's default mode is to empower those who hold positions against the vast majority of scientists and experts. McCain will not pander to the oil industry in the way that the double whammy Bush-Cheney duo apparently have.

Obama certainly will lead us away from foreign oil and quickly. This is of course the way it needs to go. And scientific decisions will be based on evidence rather than ideology. The science advisor will return to having the president's ear. I don't remember if it was Bush or Clinton that removed this person from the cabinet. Apparently the science advisor has never had less influence in an administration than this position has had under Bush.

Public Good
McCain will follow the lead of his party on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Of course that lead has given Christians zilch-o. During Bush's administration the number of abortions has gone down less than they did during Clinton's administration. McCain will appoint more conservative judges than Obama will. So we'll get the right decisions with McCain's picks when the right decision is conservative, and we'll get the right decisions with Obama's picks when the right decision is liberal. Sometimes the right decision is conservative, and sometimes the right decision is liberal.

Both McCain and Obama have the same position on gay marriage and civil rights for gay couples. Both oppose gay marriage and both believe homosexual couples should have rights in relation to their partners. Obama will further non-discrimination far more than McCain, but then again he has also supported the continuance of faith based funding, which earned him some flack from his own party (the maverick :-)

I remain convinced that the legislative approach to such issues is counterproductive if it is merely the attempt of one segment of the population to impose its will on another. I believe both McCain and Obama recognize this fact, while those Bush has empowered generally have not. I do believe that Obama is serious when he speaks of reducing unwanted pregnancies and increasing support for adoption. I believe the number of abortions will go down significantly under him, all things being equal, probably more than under McCain.

Of course the public good is much bigger than these two issues, as a growing number of evangelicals recognize. Issues of the environment, poverty, slave trafficking, human rights, etc. are very important issues too for a Christian. Government cannot solve all these problems, but as the keeper of the social contract, it is its job to try, and we should vote for people who recognize this. I believe McCain would respond positively to these concerns, and I know Obama would proactively.

National Security and Foreign Policy
I think both candidates have strengths in these areas too. McCain will certainly stand up to any powers that threaten the U.S. On the other hand, as someone who actually served in Vietnam, he won't glibly lead us into war with other countries because of some ideological strategy drummed up in some think tank in Washington.

Somehow I suspect that we will end up leaving Iraq on pretty much the same timeline no matter who is elected. Obama will not be able to withdraw quickly if the consequences are severe, and McCain will have to accommodate a political situation in which we are wanted out. Both of them will fire on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Syria and use the new technologies at hand to do it. Neither will use waterboarding or torture.

And Obama will be good for America's position in the world. Few Americans realize how badly Bush has affected our standing in the world, how the whole world is longing for him to leave office, both among our friends and our enemies. If some Americans still stupidly think Obama is a Muslim, you can imagine a lot of people in the Middle East think he is. Ironically, that may mean that he will be able to restore dialog toward peace in the Middle East in a way that has been stalled since Bush launched the Iraq War.

They're wrong, of course, about Obama being Muslim. He's a liberal Christian of the non-historical sort. He probably does not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead or in hell. I don't know these things for sure, of course. I'm guessing. I think he decided to be a Christian because he believes in the Christian ethic, in the ethical teachings and goals of Christianity. I believe he made an intentional decision to change from atheist to Christian for that reason.

I don't vote for a President because I agree with all his or her positions or even because I like him or her. I vote for a President because of how I think they will govern, for the good or for the ill. An election is not a popularity contest or a vote for the person who looks like me. It is a vote for a set of probable representative decisions, plain and simple. It is not wise to vote for whether a candidate looks like me. Wisdom is to vote for the person who will best represent my interests and the interests of others.

Either way, I think we will be better off on Wednesday than we are now. Both have strengths!

McCain and Wife on SNL

Another winner... John McCain takes to QVC...

Obama's Projector

I was listening to McCain in Virginia today, and he brought up again the 3 million dollar "projector" for a planetarium in Chicago earmark Obama promoted in a bill (it didn't pass).

Here's something like what the projector looks like:

This is one of the reasons I think Obama is a better vote when it comes to science and technology. I have a strong hunch that the Bush administration has been a big obstacle to scientific research in every area but weapons and surveillance development. Science advisors were ignored repeatedly, from what I've heard, as decisions were made in terms of political and ideological forces rather than people who actually know science.

McCain seems saner on this score than Bush, but I strongly object to any suggestion that buying these sorts of things is not fundamentally important to what our scientific future will look like when our children today are deciding what field to go into in 10-15 years.

India is posed to run us over like a Mac truck in these areas in 10-15 years. They're off to the moon in the next couple years while we won't even have a Space Shuttle any more! We're going to be relying on the Russians to get us to the space station!

Not the most important issue, not the issue that should decide who you vote for, but one issue among many... and definitely an aspect of American education we need to ramp up...

Monday Editorial: Happy Birthday to Theodore Roosevelt

I came across the fact that today is Teddy Roosevelt's 150th birthday. Since John McCain has called himself a Republican in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, I thought I ought to take a quick look at the man. All I remembered from school was, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" and the Rough Riders in Cuba during the Spanish-American War.

TR considered himself a progressive, and this aspect of the man is probably part of what McCain likes about him. It is no doubt one of the reasons swing voters and independents have liked McCain in the past, although the necessity to hold the extremities of the Republican base have made it very difficult for McCain to succeed over all. He can't get elected without the silent majority of moderates in America. But he can't get elected as a Republican without the vocal minority of "death before compromise" extremities.

Some ways in which McCain is apparently not like Roosevelt are Roosevelt's approach to big business and national health care. Roosevelt lived during the last period when business had been allowed to run its own course without significant government regulation...

... And here we should be clear. I get really irritated with those who are decrying the greed of Wall Street right now. The very nature of the capitalist system is built on the principle that people will advance their own self-interest as much as they can. The entire capitalist system is built on the pursuit of one's self-interest, and greed is just another way of saying that. The theory is that if everyone pursues their own self-interest, our self-interests will cancel each other out leaving us with a compromise that maximizes everyone's "take."

The reason why I support capitalism in general is not because it is based on Christian values or Christian attitudes. I support it because it takes into account Christian beliefs like the fallenness of humanity, as well as what I believe is a healthly drive to "be fruitful and multiply." Of course the greater Christian value is to look out for the interests of others and not only for our own (Phil. 2:4). It is for this reason, as Drury has blogged this week, Ayn Rand would consider Christian ethics immoral.

History shows, of course, that in practice there has to be a referee watching to make sure that the system works. In Roosevelt's day, there was no possibility of my self-interest coming up in any way against the self-interests of a Rockefeller. Thus Roosevelt introduced the "Square Deal." He passed legislation against monopolies, where the rules of competing self-interest are eliminated.

TR worked to get the Pure Food and Drug Act passed and founded the Interstate Commerce Commission. These government organizations made sure that the self-interests of the public were fairly represented against the all powerful self-interests of big business. Alan Greenspan's admission of lack of foresight last week amounts to an endorsement of John Stuart Mill's 1800's critique of Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham--you can't count on people always doing what is truly in their long term self-interest. "Self-interest" is a many splendored thing, and should be understood to cover everything from what is rationally in my self-interest to greed.

In short, the complete deregulation of business is not only contrary to Christian values--that's a no brainer. It is economically stupid as well from the standpoint of what Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill were trying to accomplish with capitalism.

Roosevelt was a "conservationist" in the terms of his day. His "big stick" policy, ironically, had a lot to do with being willing to negotiate with those your stick threatens. The biggest blight on his presidency would seem to be his racist attitude toward Native Americans. We can see this now in retrospect far better than they could have seen it back then.

So happy birthday to one of the top ten presidents of US history, and the fourth face on Mt. Rushmore.

SNL: Bush endorses McCain and Palin

Life is going to be so dull after the election :-)

In the interest of balance...

Since some feel that my election posts have been one-sided, I thought I would post without comment this open letter from James Dobson.
__________
Dear Friends,

Can you feel the tension in the air? The nation--and indeed, the world--is holding its collective breath as the final days of the presidential campaign wind down and the candidates engage in one last round of electioneering and debating. By this time next month, we'll know whether Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama will be inaugurated in January as the 44th President of the United States.

Considering the stark differences between the two presidential candidates and the critical issues that are hanging in the balance, it's not difficult to understand why Campaign 2008 has been such a spirited affair. I'd like to take a few moments to consider what is at stake in this year's election, particularly for those of us who embrace a biblical worldview. Please understand that I will share these thoughts under the umbrella of Focus on the Family Action™, which has supported the preparation and distribution of this newsletter. Focus Action is, in turn, supported by contributions from those who do not receive tax deductible receipts for them. Thanks so much to you who made it possible.

Let's start with the need to elect a pro-family, pro-life President. The importance of this objective cannot be overstated. Between 2009 and 2012, there will likely be two or more opportunities for the President to nominate new justices to the Supreme Court. Some court watchers say there could be as many as four resignations. That alone should give us serious pause as we consider for whom to cast our votes. In the months ahead, the Supreme Court will likely hand down rulings that will impact America for generations to come. We need a President who will nominate conservative, strict-constructionist judges to the Court. If that doesn't happen, the highest court in the land could become stacked--even more than it already is--with justices who will endeavor to legislate from the bench and impose a liberal agenda on the nation. It will likely affect the definition of marriage, religious freedom, and the protection (or lack thereof) of life in the womb.

It's probably obvious which of the two major party candidates' views are most palatable to those of us who embrace a pro-life, pro-family worldview. While I will not endorse either candidate this year, I can say that I am now supportive of Senator John McCain and his bid for the presidency. This is not because I am beholden to the Senator from Arizona or to the Republican Party. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with my views knows that I have agonized at times during this election process, and have been strongly critical of Senator McCain and the Republican Party on numerous occasions. My concern is for the biblical and moral values that I and millions of Americans hold dear. I will gladly support politicians of any stripe who are willing to defend the sanctity of human life, support the institution of traditional marriage, protect the country from terrorism and advance the cause of religious liberty. While certainly not perfect, the 2008 Republican platform comes closest to embracing those ideals by a wide margin.

In recent weeks, I have received some measure of criticism from those who feel that my "change of heart" toward John McCain is unwarranted. I understand those views and concede that the Senator continues to embrace positions that concern me. I don't apologize, however, for reevaluating our options in this election year. John Maynard Keynes, whose views I have disagreed with strongly, said this about reversing course: "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"1 In this instance, Keynes' perspective is correct. Every thinking person will eventually have reason to change his or her mind as circumstances evolve, as they have done during this long political ordeal.

There are four primary--and I believe compelling--reasons why I now view the McCain presidential candidacy favorably:

During the "Saddleback Forum" on Aug. 16, Sens. Obama and McCain fielded questions from the Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren. Senator McCain gave very solid and encouraging answers to questions about the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage, whereas Senator Obama came down at the other end of the argument. You will recall the following interchange during the forum: Pastor Rick Warren: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Senator Obama: "... Answering that question with specificity, you know, is, uh, is, above my pay grade."2 With all due respect, Senator, if this question is above your pay grade, then so is the job attached to it.

The Republican Party's 2008 national platform is a remarkably conservative document.3 Indeed, it is the strongest pro-life platform in the history of the party, surpassing even the pro-life advances of the Reagan years. It was approved and sanctioned by the McCain campaign.
Senator McCain selected an astonishingly strong pro-life, pro-family running mate in Governor Sarah Palin. Although he could have embraced a liberal Vice Presidential nominee, such as Senator Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, he made the bold decision to join forces with a VP pick whose views reflect those of the party's conservative base. I'll discuss Governor Palin's candidacy in greater detail in a moment.

The longer the campaign continues, the more concerned I have become with Barack Obama's liberal views. Certainly, he is an attractive and very charismatic candidate who has embarked on a campaign of historical proportions. However, the majority of his policies represent the antithesis of principles I hold dear. Senator Obama's record is more liberal than that of any other Democrat in the Senate4--and that's saying something! For example, when he was a state senator in Illinois, he voted four times in three years against legislation that would have saved the lives of babies that managed to survive the abortion process.5 The U.S. Senate subsequently passed similar legislation called The Born Alive Infant Protection Act by unanimous consent.6 (Obama was not a U.S. Senator at the time.) State Senator Obama was chairman of the committee that opposed this protection of babies, and in 2001 and 2002 was the only legislator who rose to argue against the Illinois Born Alive Act.7 That is an undeniable fact!

My good friend, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum published a scathing analysis of Senator Obama's pro-abortion record earlier this year. Here is an excerpt of what he wrote:
In March 2001, [Senator] Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child."8 So according to [Senator] Obama, "they", (babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns,) should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.9

To further underscore Senator Obama's radical devotion to abortion rights, he has promised that "the first thing I'd do as president" would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.10 The FOCA is a devastating piece of legislation that would overturn nearly every local, state, and federal anti-abortion law passed in the last 40 years.11 In fact, it's so broadly written that legal analysts suggest the bill may prevent institutions and physicians from refusing to provide abortion services by invoking the conscience clause.

Earlier this year, while talking about sex education and abortion, the Senator said the following: "I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."12 In other words, a pre-born baby is viewed as a form of punishment, and can therefore be murdered in the name of convenience.

It is a matter of historic significance that Barack Obama has become the first African-American to capture the nomination of a major political party for the office of President of the United States. I applaud that remarkable accomplishment. Nevertheless, I cannot support his candidacy because the positions he holds on moral, social and family issues place him at the extreme left of the political spectrum. What the Senator believes and the policies he would seek to implement are on a collision course with the biblical principles and beliefs I have fought to defend for more than 35 years.

Turning the corner, the significance of Governor Palin to the 2008 presidential race is also worthy of further consideration. Here is a woman who is a deeply committed Christian, and who is pro-life not only with regard to her policies, but in her personal life. She and her husband welcomed their latest child, Trig, into the world even though he was diagnosed with Down syndrome while still in the womb. Approximately 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted,13 but Governor Palin carried her precious child to term and now loves and cares for him despite the challenges associated with a special needs child. Similarly, her teenage daughter, Bristol, who became pregnant out of wedlock, could have bowed to cultural pressure to seek an abortion. Instead, she and the father plan to get married and raise their child together. Governor Palin has been married for 20 years, and by all accounts, she is a portrait of Christian motherhood and womanhood.

As for Governor Palin's qualifications to be Vice President of the United States and to assume the mantle of President, should that ever become necessary, she is much better suited for the job than the talking heads on the liberal Left would have you believe. She came out of nowhere to win the Alaskan gubernatorial race against a powerful incumbent. While in office, she bravely fought widespread corruption--including that within her own party--in the face of great opposition. Govenor Palin's critics suggest that her experience as mayor of a "small town" is somehow a liability, but it is an asset. In fact, her time as Mayor of Wasilla and then as Governor of Alaska gives her a greater degree of executive experience than Senator Barack Obama can claim. Her qualifications to be Vice President, I would submit, exceed those of Senator Barack Obama, who spent only 143 working days in the U.S. Senate prior to announcing his run for President.14 He authored no significant legislation during that time.

I'm sure you have heard the shrill voices from the political Left decrying Mrs. Palin for any and every reason under the sun. They gloat over the pregnancy of her daughter Bristol and claim it as "evidence" that abstinence education, which Sarah Palin strongly supports, is somehow a sham. They criticize Governor Palin for daring to hold political office and run for Vice President while having a baby at home, even though the Left has for decades supported a woman's right to do just that. The attacks on Governor Palin and her family in recent weeks have been astonishingly unfair and mean-spirited. If she were a liberal Democrat, she would be praised and lauded for making the same decisions for which she is now being criticized. The double standard is obvious.

Governor Palin's decision to run for Vice President while raising a baby with special needs has given pause to some conservative voices as well. Some have even questioned my enthusiasm over Governor Palin's candidacy in light of these circumstances. It's important to note that although I have often said stay-at-home moms are vitally important to raising the next generation, I have never suggested that it is wrong for mothers to work outside the home. Indeed, Focus on the Family® has hired thousands of mothers over the years. I have said, however, that if a mother is going to enter the workplace, she and her husband must first find a way to meet the needs of their children. Sarah Palin appears to have done that. Todd, her husband, is actively involved in the raising of their children, and it seems obvious that Sarah will continue to be a positive force in her children's lives even as she carries out her duties in the political arena. Regardless of your political views, may I suggest that the Palins need our prayers, not our disdain, at this critical moment in our nation's history.

Senator Obama's selection of fellow liberal Democrat Joseph Biden (Del.) is also extremely revealing. While the National Journal ranked Obama the most liberal Senator last year, Senator Biden was ranked 3rd on their list--just ahead of Vermont's Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed socialist.15 While the Senator of 36 years from Delaware stands in blatant opposition to the pro-family movement, many of you will remember him from his vociferous opposition to several of our finer Supreme Court justices, namely, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas.

Returning to our theme, America's future seems to hang in the balance at this time. Our next President will have a dramatic impact on countless legislative issues. Since being relegated to minority status in 2006, House Republicans have skillfully used the rules of parliamentary procedure to frustrate many of the Democrats' attempts to pass bad legislation. To this point, that effort has almost always been backed by a President who is willing to use the veto pen when necessary. The threat of President Bush's veto on hate crimes legislation and issues regarding the sanctity of life have kept a Democrat-controlled Congress from implementing its liberal agenda. Will our next President stand up to Congress in the same manner, or will he side with them, thereby giving the Democrats free reign to impose their liberal values on America?

It is likely, say the pundits, that both the House and the Senate in the 111th Congress will still be controlled by Democrats. If that party also takes the White House, a wave of anti-family, pro-homosexual legislation is almost guaranteed to pass in 2009. The bills put forward and advanced this year by Democrats reveal where they want to take the country. For example, they inserted hate crimes language into the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, but were forced to remove it in conference, again under the threat of veto.16 While in the Illinois Senate, Senator Obama voted for a bill authorizing "comprehensive" sex education beginning in kindergarten. Defenders have attempted to downplay its significance, citing the fact that it called for the content to be "age appropriate" and "medically accurate"--dubious and subjective qualifiers given the sensitive nature of the topic and innocence of the audience!17 (When criticized for supporting this legislation, the Senator was dismissive and said proudly, I quote, "It's the right thing to do."18)

Large portions of the agenda promoted by homosexual activists will also be enacted. The implications for a federal hate crimes law are clear. People speaking against homosexuality have already been prosecuted under hate crimes laws both in the United States and abroad. If a federal hate crimes law passes, there will be little to prevent the government from endeavoring to control and curtail religious speech, especially from the pulpit. It is entirely possible that a pastor could be charged with inducing a federal hate crime simply by preaching from one of the many biblical passages that address homosexuality.

Congressional Democrats will also seek to pass the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, meaning businesses will be forced to accept and condone homosexuality--and possibly transgenderism--in making employment decisions. Further, business owners, including religious businesses, will not be able to make hiring and firing decisions based on their religious convictions. Earlier this year, Senator Barack Obama said, "I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepherd Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Nondiscrimination Act."19

Finally, I am deeply concerned about the tax and spend policies Senator Obama will impose on the American people if he is elected, especially in light of the current financial crisis. This is not the time to be taking money out of the economy, yet, he has proposed enormous new federal programs and entitlements that will cost multiple billions of dollars. These initiatives cannot be effected without huge increases in taxation on businesses, which will be passed on to the public and to individual families. This will almost certainly require a return of the odious marriage penalty tax that plagued families for 34 years!

The races for the White House and the Congress are hardly the only matters worthy of concern in this election cycle. At the state and local levels, numerous policies and pieces of legislation are being put to a vote, and many of them are directly related to family and moral issues. For example, the definition of marriage is on the ballot in Arizona (Proposition 102), California (Proposition 8) and Florida (Amendment 2). Voters in Colorado will be given the opportunity to expand the definition of "personhood" to include all human beings from the moment of fertilization (Amendment 48). In South Dakota, voters will be asked to ban all abortions except those involving cases of rape and incest, or when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the life or physical health of the mother (Measure 11). Michigan is considering whether to legalize embryonic stem cell research, which would result in the killing of tiny human beings. In California, voters will also get the chance to decide whether minor girls should be required to give 48 hours' notice to a parent or adult relative before having an abortion (Proposition 4). Arkansas voters will decide whether to prevent couples living together out of wedlock--heterosexual or homosexual--from adopting children or serving as foster parents.

These are just a few of the important issues that, depending on which state you live in, will be on the ballot next month. I implore you to spend the few days remaining before the election researching the various amendments, ballot measures, and local and national candidates. Then, exercise your responsibility before God to vote on or before November 4th. Please, let your voices be heard. For more information, visit Focus on the Family Action's Web site.

Regardless of your political views, I want to urge Christians everywhere to be in prayer about this election. There are many scriptural references wherein King David "inquired of God" when he was faced by troubling circumstances (1 Samuel 23:2,4; 30:8; 2 Samuel 2:1; 5:19,23). It is time for Christians everywhere to turn to Him for guidance and wisdom. Find some time to be still and listen to what He wants to tell you. The National Day of Prayer Task Force, led by my wonderful wife, Shirley, has embarked on a national campaign entitled "Pray for Election Day." All around the country, individuals and groups are being encouraged to gather every Thursday leading up to November 4th between 12-noon and 12:30 p.m. Spend time with the Lord, asking Him to guide and direct those privileged to cast a ballot. If you are able, I would also encourage you to fast and pray immediately before the election. After all, it was the Reverend Billy Graham who once said that "To get nations back on their feet, we must first get down on our knees."20 Amen, Dr. Graham.

This election is about the future of the nation, but it will also go a long way toward determining the culture your children and grandchildren will come to know. I know you will vote with your children and your children's children in mind. That certainly puts the election in a different light, doesn't it?

You know my heart on these issues, and I hope you understand that I am less concerned with politicians and political parties than I am with the timeless biblical principles that those parties have the power to either strengthen or damage. No candidate is perfect, whether in this election or any other. Please don't make your decisions lightly. There is simply too much at stake. May God grant each of us wisdom as November 4th approaches.

Sincerely,
James C. Dobson, Ph.D.Founder and Chairman

P.S. Since I began researching and writing this letter, the economic meltdown on Wall Street and congressional reaction to it has occurred. These are, indeed, difficult times for American families and businesses. Thank you for continuing to support this ministry, even though in many cases it has required sacrificial giving. You are helping to keep us afloat during this financial crisis, and we appreciate your contribution and prayers more than I can tell you.

Endnotes1 Louis Uchitelle, "2 Mavericks in Economics Awarded Nobel Prize," The New York Times, Oct. 12, 2004, (Sept. 29, 2008). Also: Alfred L. Malabre, Lost Prophets: An Insider's History of the Modern Economists (1994), p. 220. (Responding to criticism when changing monetary policy in the midst of the Great Depression.)2 Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum, CNN Transcript, Aug. 16, 2008. (Sept. 29, 2008). 3 Republican National Committee, 2008 Republican Platform, (Sept. 28, 2008). 4 "National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings," National Journal Group Inc., 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008).5 bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.aspx (September 2008).6 frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S7084&position=all (Sept. 29, 2008).7 bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.aspx (Sept. 30, 2008).8 "Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act," Illinois Federation For Right to Life Daily News online, April 3, 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008).9 Rick Santorum, "The Elephant in the Room: Why conservatives should support McCain," The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 21, 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008).10 youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2SvM (Sept. 29, 2008).11 aul.org/FOCA (Sept. 29, 2008).12 "Ballot Bowl 2008: More Campaign Happenings," CNN Transcripts, March 29, 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008).13 Patricia E. Bauer, "What's Lost in Prenatal Testing: Why Encourage Testing for Down Syndrome," Jan. 14, 2007, Washington Post. 14 "Days in Session Calendars," Thomas, The Library of Congress, (Sept. 29, 2008).15 National Journal online, 2008, Ibid.16 Paul Kane, "Hill Negotiators Drop Hate-Crime Provision," Washington Post, Dec. 7, 2007, (Sept. 29, 2008). 17 Byron York, "On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right," National Review Online, Sept. 16, 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008). 18 "Obama on Sex Ed in Kindergarten: 'It's the Right Thing to Do,'" Free Republic online, Sept. 10, 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008).19 Michael Foust, "Obama: If elected I will use the bully pulpit for gay causes," Baptist Press, Feb. 28, 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008).20 Chuck Spinner, A Book of Prayers: To the Heavens from the Stars, (AuthorHouse: 2008), p. 225 (Sept. 29, 2008).
Paid for by Focus on the Family Action.

Colin Powell endorces Obama

As most of you will already know, Colin Powell thoughtfully endorsed Obama this morning on Meet the Press. You may not agree with his assessments, but his measured and thoughtful analysis is what we need more of in politics. What we don't need is the clearly partisan approach of the Keith Olbermanns, Rush Limbaughs, Bill Maher's, Bill O'Reilly's, etc. Powell is not objective--no one is. But this fair weighing of both sides is sorely lacking these days.

I firmly believe his perspective on America in general is where the country is headed, whether one agrees or not, whether Obama is elected or not.

Here's the video of his endorsement:



By the way, I don't know Obama, but once again someone who does puts to rest the attempt to defeat Obama by casting doubt on his character. If you disagree with Obama's positions more than you disagree with McCain's positions, vote against him. Or better, if you agree with McCain's positions more than you agree with Obama's, vote for him.

But don't vote because of some underhanded email, letter, or TV ad rumor against either candidate. They are aimed at the weak of mind. Don't be weak of mind.

Shame on Political Manipulators...

I was a little worried tonight when I heard this Robocall from my own party:

"Hello, I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capital, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead this country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee."

So I dug around to see what John McCain himself thinks:

"I have to tell you he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States."

... and in the same rally:

"... No ma'am. No ma'am. He's a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on, on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

... and in the brief serious moment of his Al Smith roast:

"I don't want it getting out of this room, but my opponent is an impressive fellow in many ways. Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in each other, but I've had a few glimpses of this man at his best. And I admire his great skill, energy, and determination. It's not for nothing that he's inspired so many folks in his own party and beyond.

"Senator Obama talks about making history and he's made quite a bit of it already. There was a time when the mere invitation of an African-American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters. Today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time, and good riddance.

"I can't wish my opponent luck. But I do wish him well."

Hear, hear. I believe that's who you really are, John McCain, though I mourn the moments of weakness such as when you let your people use Robocalls like the above or when you or Palin follow those scriptwriters. It makes me lose respect for you and my own party. It makes me want to vote all the more for the other guy.

So I'm listening to you, John McCain, in your moments of honesty and honor. And I decry the attempts of losers to manipulate the feeble of mind because they have not been able to win on the merits.

I am not alone.

McCain Beats Obama...

... at the Al Smith dinner tonight.

McCain was hilarious, even if there were a few slightly tense parts. Obama had a few laughs but it's pretty clear to me that he is basically a serious guy.

I wasn't able to find it all in one video, so I've pasted the two parts. Enjoy!

Part 1:



Part 2:

Who Won in the Last Debate?

I fell asleep for about the first half hour of the debate, in which I hear McCain shined. The sound bites I'm hearing is that McCain won the first half hour but then didn't distinguish himself as much in the last hour.

What did you think?

By the way, this old Batman episode is getting a lot of travel tonight. Ha!

Obama Well Ahead?

I don't trust the polls, frankly.

I was undecided in the 2000 election right up until I went into the booth. I told the students in line with me that I was thinking of voting for my wife (I'm pretty sure they were voting for Gore).

But when I got in the booth, my default took over, and I voted for Bush. I voted for Bush because I was raised to think of Democrats as immoral liberals. I voted for Bush because I didn't like what I took to be Clinton and Gore's arrogance. And, thought I, how much damage can a president really do? Besides, this is Indiana, how I vote won't make a lick of difference.

Of course that was before 9-11 and the subsequent Iraq War.

My point is not to tell about my regrets in the 2000 election. My point is to say that I don't believe the polls that show Obama up by so much.

I do think most of those who have said they will vote for Obama probably will. He might loose two or three per cent to the Bradley effect.

But I'm guessing today that almost all of those who are still calling themselves undecided at this point of the game will probably break McCain because they just don't trust a black man named Barack Hussein Obama to be in the White House.

People say race doesn't bother them when they're talking. But then again, I signed up to jump out of an airplane and to bungy jump while I was on the ground. I felt a little differently in the plane or on the crane.

We'll see, but I'm thinking Obama needs about a 10% lead in the polls actually to be elected.

P.S. I did make myself jump.

Now That's the McCain I Admire

I heard a glimpse of the old McCain yesterday, the one I wanted back in 2000. I mentioned yesterday that his crowds are getting more and more psycho. I suspect that works in McCain's advantage and no doubt some of his advisors are telling him to run with it.

But yesterday he corrected a couple of people in the town hall meetings. One was a woman who said something about Obama being Arab (the official representative from the "I'm a stupid American" club, no doubt). Another man expressed deep fear of Obama as a person.

McCain stepped up to the plate both times, "No, sir, Obama is a decent family man. You have nothing to fear if he becomes president."

Good for you, John McCain!

Why So Much Anti-Obama Anger?

I'm sure some of you have seen the clips of people in the McCain's audience in Waukesha, Wisconsin who are angry that Obama is ahead. They're pleading in great anger for McCain to do something about it. This turn in the McCain campaign is scary because it gets at a fundamental irrationality that I could see leading someone eventually to try to assassinate Obama.

What's up with that? Don't give me irrational ad hominem lines about Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, or ACORN. I don't believe these are the real reasons anyone doesn't like Obama. They are the age old "attack the person" when you can't win on the issues. McCain's erratic, "throw anything I can think of in hopes that something sticks," is embarrassing and disgraceful--and it's far from just the "liberals" who have noticed (e.g., George Will).

So why the anger? Here are some of my suggestions?

1. Don't want a black in charge.
I've heard the interviews. This is major. There are an aweful lot of white people who will vote against Obama for no other real reason (regardless of whatever blather comes out of their mouths) than the fact that he's black. The Muslim accusation is really a mask for people who don't want to admit they don't like the fact that Obama is black.

This campaign has exposed the deep racism that continues to exist among vast numbers of Americans. This is also one of the reasons why Obama doesn't fair as well among older people as he does among younger people. Older Americans are far more likely to have more racism deep in their skulls than younger ones.

2. Spoiled "divine right" conservatives.
The combination of 9-11 with the prevailing of the Christian right in the Bush administration has allowed a lot of people to have the impression that with Bush, God had finally prevailed in America. After exploiting the power they have had these eight years to advance their agendas, agendas they identify with God's agendas, they are shocked and indignant that Satan, in this case Obama, may very well soon take their righteous power away.

But I doubt very seriously that the Bush administration was a taste of the kingdom of God. A better moral to this story is to be kind to others when you are in power and just maybe they will be kind to you when they're in power.

Who Won?

Trying to be objective, I couldn't pick a clear winner last night. Both candidates presented their positions and either you agree more with one or the other. And the style of one or the another might grate on you--Obama if you think he's smug and cocky, McCain if you think he's condescending and rude.

The polls I've seen so far give Obama the edge. What do you think?

Monday Editorial: The Economy

This past week has highlighted the American economy in relationship to the coming election. I would not presume to speak with great authority on such matters. In the past, I have preferred Republicans in office to Democrats when it comes to the economy. I am sympathetic to the idea that Bush's first stimulus package had much as anything to do with pulling us out of the economic nose dive we were in when he took office. But I have no expertise to say so.

I attribute our current economic crisis (again, these are my hunches as a complete amateur) to:

1. The War in Iraq
On this one I feel confident. The Iraq War has cost us outrageous amounts that we have borrowed from the Chinese and others. I blame this war as a major cause of our economic crisis.

2. The Runaway oil situation
I do not at all buy the arguments (I haven't heard them lately) that gas prices are simply a matter of supply and demand. I blame investors in oil who have driven up the price of a barrel to their current levels.

3. Vast Deregulation
This is just a hunch, but I think we will find (and I assume the experts already know) that the Bush administration has taken a real libertarian approach to business, vast laissez-faire on the market. I'm not saying they began this approach, but I suspect they've taken it to new levels. I have great suspicion that they have not controlled capitalism the way it has to be controlled to keep Marx's predictions from coming true.

I am a capitalist, not a socialist by any means. But capitalism must be carefully controlled if it is to achieve the purposes that Adam Smith intended it to have. Even John Stuart Mills recognized this in the second generation of capitalists. Smith simply can't be carried forward to a global economy, even a contemporary national one, without taking on board the lessons of the nineteenth century. The key is as little government control as necessary to allow for true competition in relation to goods and services. This blind short selling stuff, on the other hand, does more harm than good, it seems to me.

4. The Easy way out
Here I am really out of my depth, but I suspect that Greenspan and the government might have been a little too soft on bailing people and businesses out for bad decisions. I am not opposed to some of this--I am not for the "let the economy crash; it will eventually right itself" approach. But I wonder if they have played with the interest rates just a little too much, created an environment where taking risks was, well, not risky enough.

5. Republican Entanglements
It is here where the candidates start coming into view. We're in Iraq. I imagine we will get out about the same similarly no matter who is elected because the Iraqis themselves are setting up a timeline for us. So perhaps our economic drain here will diminish some in coming years, although it may just shift back to Afghanistan (where it should have been all along).

Oil is going to be a problem until we aren't using it any more, even if we start drilling immediately everywhere. My strong hunch is that Obama would move faster away from oil than McCain, so I've already given Obama the energy vote.

On deregulation and speculation, it seems to me that a Republican president will have a really hard time going in a different direction than Bush has gone. Here is where I get to Republican entanglements. It makes no sense to me, for example, that oil companies be given massive tax exemptions with all the money they're making. It makes no sense to me to perpetuate Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans.

These were all tax benefits implemented by the Bush administration that weren't there before. I can see the argument of not taxing small business owners, but the people in the above paragraph are big business owners. I do know some people who earn in the 250,000-500,000 dollar a year range who are so in debt that they might struggle under Obama.

All of that is to say that I find Obama's proposed tax on the upper 5% of the population (much of which is a return to pre-Bush levels) reasonable in order to work on some aspects of American society that have suffered under the Bush administration--like education and social services. I am not for simply handing out money to the impoverished. Roosevelt's initiatives like the WPA created jobs for the poor. So the goal should be to get people working, go to them, empower them, rather than to pump money into the black hole of poverty.

I firmly believe that there are some people out there who are smart enough that, if they really wanted to and if the powers that be didn't get in the way, they could devise healthy systems for empowering those who are in a cycle of poverty and to enable health care for everybody in a way much better than what both those with and without have now. I believe we don't have this now because those who have the power to make it so don't want it so.

In terms of the election, my sense of who to vote for here is uncertain, although I think it leans Obama. I seem remember McCain making some comment in the primary season about not knowing much about economic theory. A week ago today he said that the fundamentals of the American economy remain sound but last night they were talking Depression--not even recession. I fear that McCain will simply appoint the same type of people in this area that Bush has--and thus that whatever the causes of our current crisis, they will simply be perpetuated. I suspect that any hope for change in this area would more come from Obama.

I'm sure some of you out there know a whole lot more about these issues than I do, so I now open up the floor for discussion.

First Swift Boat Ad: Obama on Sex Education

I don't know whether I'll do this much, but I'm hoping that the blogosphere will K-O the kind of nonsense ads that usually accompany a presidential election. I passed over the "lipstick on a pig" debate, which I found absurd and falsely indignant. Obama was clearly talking about McCain's policies, not Palin. McCain himself, indeed Dick Cheney, has used the expression.

And yes, the audience may very well have laughed because of Palin's "lipstick on a pitbull" comment in her speech. I take the fact that she didn't break down and cry because of the hurtfulness of the comment shows that she's "woman" enough to play with the big dogs. If she couldn't handle someone thinking of her views as pigish, then she's not strong enough to be a VP candidate... she is. So this one is for the trash. If the fact that people laughed really hurt you, then you may not be mature enough to listen to politics and should go back to your Dr. Seuss books.

But more significant is the attack ad the McCain campaign is putting out claiming that Obama supported "comprehensive" sex ed in Kindergarten in Illinois and that this is the only education legislation he has ever supported. This article points out how misleading this ad is. Of course both sides are spinning out distortions and I personally reserve judgment on these sorts of rumors about both sides until I have further information.

On this one, "comprehensive" meant through high school. All that Kindergarteners would have learned--and the bill never even went to a vote--is how to resist individuals who might try to touch you in inappropriate places. The ad thus plays into the usual conservative Christian machine that inevitably makes whoever the Democratic candidate is into the anti-Christ.

There are issues where evangelical Christians will side with McCain over Obama, but I don't think education should be one of them. On the matter of education, I have already concluded that Obama is the better candidate. I might add that the very journal that the attack add quotes critiquing Obama on one point, considers McCain a "do nothing" candidate on education.

Monday Editorial: Energy and the Environment

The words of the two candidates this year are not drastically different on the subject of energy. Both, for example, are talking about wind and solar, and about renewable energy. Both have even affirmed nuclear energy and clean coal technology. Their main difference has to do with drilling.

McCain has changed his position on off shore drilling in the light of gas prices. I don't remember if Obama has taken a strong position against it, but it would be hard for a Democrat to support it--one of those "don't go there" issues for the party. Meanwhile, Palin has offered Anwar to America. I'm not actually hard set against drilling in Anwar. I think McCain for the moment is still quietly resisting his party's platform on that one, despite Palin's position.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to drilling in itself on the presumption that it can be done without great damage to the local environment. And I suspect it can be done relatively cleanly if it is done right.

However, these are just stop gap measures--ones that won't last very long even at full speed ahead. I'm more afraid they will simply provide an excuse not to get down to business and do what we really need to be doing--weaning ourselves off of oil. Drilling won't make us energy independent--won't even get us close. And it's moving in the wrong direction. Science should be a lot further than it is on these issues and the reason it isn't are 1) big business and 2) Republicans.

The Republicans can talk about the future of energy, but they have resisted it tooth and nail and have in fact held us back from what every Star Trek geek has known since the late 60's. In short, a tie on energy goes to the Democrats, whom we know will actually do something about the long term goal of making us energy independent. All we have are promises from the Republicans on this one, and their record is too poor in this area to be trusted.

On the environment, sure, there are many hard core environmentalists out there with unreasonable demands of what you can and cannot do. I don't think Obama is one of them. The Republicans, meanwhile, have resisted the idea of global warming, once again, until recently when the issue could no longer be ignored. Now they finally acknowledge the warming but question its cause.

What is it about American culture that actually considers being an expert on a topic a sign that you don't know what you're talking about? Have you ever thought about it? A person who is good at math or science in America is a nerd, a geek--an uncool person who obviously should be ignored. Only in America would it be part of our unthinking paradigm that an uneducated moron has more authority to know the right position against the vast majority of those who actually know the evidence and the ins and outs of the issue! This is a sobering thought with huge implications to anyone who seriously ponders it.

The experts on energy and the environment seem to lean heavily in the direction of the Democrats on this particular issue. Of course I doubt the majority of Republicans have an intentional agenda to pollute and exploit the earth. But if we had to ask, on this issue, which party has the more Christian position, I would be hard pressed to see how the Democratic party is not the right answer on this one. The most Christian perspective on the earth sees it as God's earth and as something we should respect and be good stewards of.

So on this issue, as on education, I have to give the vote to Obama.

McCain's Speech Last Night

First, let me say that I like John McCain. I sure wish I could have voted for him in 2000. The tone of so much of what I've heard of the Republican convention has really turned me off. McCain gets that the American people are sick of this way of doing politics. Although he didn't get massive claps, I deeply appreciate his comments on reaching across the isle.

[I can't stand Lindsay Graham--if he even gets mentioned in the history books (doubtful), his way of thinking about Iraq is what the footnotes will make snide remarks about.]

I do want to say that I resent the continued insinuation that somehow the Republican party is the party that loves the U.S.A., U.S.A, U.S.A. Anyone can shout "U.S.A" like a drunk at a football game. I want people who can think through complex issues, not just shoot when you can't think of anything else to do. (By the way, when did moose hunting qualify you to be Vice President?)

As nice as McCain is, I thought his speech was pretty flat. Who cares about earmarks? That's part of the way representing your state works. It reminds me of Bush Senior's feeble attempt to advocate lawsuit reform in 1992. Nobody cared (although I voted for him).

I didn't find some of his lines heartfelt. So he said, "we need judges who don't legislate from the bench." Somehow, I don't think this is really his beef. He was reading the party's script on things like tax credits to send your kids to private schools.

I did appreciate what he had to say about hating war and doing everything in his power to keep it from happening. I wish Bush and Cheney had had more of this in them. And frankly, I thought these comments were in tension with the rest of the convention's war rhetoric.

My conclusion: McCain is far more inspiring when people are talking about him than when he is talking himself. I honor his service; I honor the fact that he suffered for so many years in Hanoi... just like I honored John Kerry for his service four years ago. Now that we've got all touchy feely, back to the real topic at hand: who would be the best person to be President of the United States?

Palin's Speech Last Night

I was working on classes last night and missed the live performance, but read through the transcript of Sarah Palin's speech this morning (as well as some excerpts from Guliani's). They struck me as pretty effective for motivating the party base.

For Guliani it was lack of executive experience for Obama and absence of any distinguishing legislation in the Senate.

For Palin it was "look, I'm a Dobson mother" and "Obama never mentioned victory once except in reference to his own campaign."

It seems to me the "no experience" and "my son's going off to Iraq next week" rhetoric works really well with the 60+ and remaining WW2 generation. Drill baby drill works with the business crowd. And holding the baby, I'm a hockey mom, works with the Dobson crowd. I did think it was a little over the top when they handed her the AK47 for the NRA crowd (just kidding).

I find Guliani's speech a more substantive attack. Other than pointing out McCain's experience, which is certainly noteworthy, Palin's speech seemed to me more "posing for pictures with the base" than anything else.

On the other hand, I think most Americans will find the raking over the coals of Palin's personal life irritating. The kind of people that are going for Obama don't like that sort of stuff, although I suspect the Clinton crowd does. In fact, the people going for Obama will find both speeches the same old polarizing approach to politics they are tired of.

The "clinging to guns and religion" quote got some air last night. I find that irritating, because the statement bears serious discussion. I have yet to see those who don't like it actually address the question of whether it has any truth to it or not. Rather, the response has been--"Are you going to let him say that about you! Let's go shoot him in the name of God!"

What did you think?