I've been amused by recent speculations that Barack Obama may be the antichrist. After Saturday's candidate forum at Saddleback Church, I think we can safely say that he isn't. That would be too far above his pay grade.
Rick Warren is also not the antichrist, though the numerous outcries against him online before the event may have lead some to suspect otherwise. Most will know better now.
And John McCain? He is authentically himself, unmoved by public perception and uniquely unchanged by his candidacy.
Warren could easily have made himself the highlight of the Saddleback event, but he didn't. He could have easily asked safe questions designed to make his audience love him, but he didn't. He asked his questions, left very little "wiggle room" for his guests, and neatly stepped out of the spotlight. It was nicely done.
Despite repeated assurances to the press that Warren would stay away from issues-based questions in this forum, he hammered out direct and difficult questions about such issues as abortion, marriage, taxes, and stem cell research without hesitation or compromise. His direct, no-nonsense wording gave the silver-tongued Obama pause, despite the friendly tone in which the questions were asked. If Obama stumbles when answering a jolly and welcoming Rick Warren, I cringe to imagine how he'd do as President when faced with less hospitable interrogators. I have no such fears about John McCain, who had no difficulty in conversing with Mr. Warren. This event was clearly easier for him than for Mr. Obama.
I fully expected Obama to dominate the evening. This was the sort of event that Obama and his brand (for he has been marketed as a brand) have been molded for. His easy-going demeanor and impressive rhetorical skills are ideally suited to this format, often leaving the less polished but more authentic McCain at something of a disadvantage.
I was wrong. Obama's distinct failure to answer most of Warren's questions looked shoddy and unprofessional when compared to McCain's short and direct answers. While Obama gave long, rambling responses and even admitted his inability to answer the abortion question, McCain's every answer seemed to challenge Warren, as if he were thinking, 'That was hard? Is that the best you've got?'
Obama is polished (though much less so at this event), but McCain is Real. The generation raised on myspace and youtube may be largely unable to make this distinction, but time will show them that Obama's digital flair cannot compare to McCain's real-life experience and convictions.
Mr. Obama has talked at length in previous forums about his ability to bring people together. In reality this means that he has an inability to displease his audience. He needs to be liked. This is useful in a candidate, but fatal in a President. He excels in the art of sounding good while saying little, and his refusal to take a firm stance on almost anything in this forum will not help him gain the vote of those who were actually listening.
John McCain has no such qualms. He is well-known for being unafraid of what people think of him. This is not always a desirable quality in a candidate, but it is absolutely necessary in a President. Let Obama remain a candidate for a few more years--he's good at it. John McCain, on the other hand, is ready to be President.
Rachel Motte serves as the Political Links Editor for ScriptoriumDaily.com. She has interned in Morton Blackwell's office at the Leadership Institute and in former Congressman Jim Ryun's office on Capitol Hill. She is a graduate of Biola University, the Torrey Honors Institute, numerous Leadership Institute schools, and has been a student at the World Journalism Institute. She blogs at http://wheatstoneforum.com .
Oh, please. What a load of partisan drivel. The only thing real about McCain is his crankiness, and he is keeping that under wraps. Everything else is a transparent, calculated act to convince voters that he alone can provide a steady hand upon the wheel.
McCain is every bit as phony as Obama. Vote for your preference, but don't try to cast him as genuine. I'm going to vote for the phony who will stop the vandalism on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
I don't know how phony Obama, McCain, or even Rick Warren are, but they all looked really good at the forum. Whether phony or not, it was certainly civil. So Rick at least achieved that much of his goal.
I don't know how phony Obama, McCain, or even Rick Warren are, but they all looked really good at the forum. Whether phony or not, it was certainly civil. So Rick at least achieved that much of his goal.
Clearly young Rachel Motte must be too young to remember much about the John McCain of eight years ago, the man who so audaciously assaulted the walls of his party's right wing bastions before being thrown over for the current Commander-in-LaLaLand. If she could remember those heady days, she might understand why so many of us who supported him then can find little resemblance between the rough-and-tumble McCain of old and the pandering disappointment we see today.
I don't know how I feel about Obama yet, but McCain will never again get my vote. The clarity of his answers at this forum, contrasted with the equally clear but very different stances that he has taken in the past on many of those same issues, only demonstrates how much he has twisted himself into a political pretzel in order to secure the party's nomination. His performance with Warren only proved to me that none of us can have any idea what he really believes.
This report is not at all what I saw. Why in the world are rapid fire prepackaged railroad responses like McCain's considered a strength, while admission of uncertainty, the courage to reflect and admit vulnerability while aiming for common ground like Obama is considered weak? Have we forgotten that Lincoln's greatest strength was his ability to listen to others and deliberate, hear them out without acting rashly, in the interest of finding a common ground that would keep the nation together? In that sense Obama looks like an heir to this legacy even in this crowd where he is basically a fish out of water.
By contrast, even McCain's sole moment of admitted vulnerability, the first marriage question, betrayed an unwillingness to look further at what he did to his first wife. No pure Evangelical in my opinion can ignore the fact that he actively pursued a way out of a marriage to his ailing and aging first wife even getting a license for Cindy before the divorce with Carol was legal.
Good Job Rachel! Great Write-up!
It's interesting how two people can watch the same thing and arrive at completely opposite conclusions.
Ms. Motte thought Obama came across as "shoddy and unprofessional" in his inability to answer Warren's questions to her satisfaction. She accuses a man she's never met as someone who "needs to be liked" because he desires to bring people together.
I, for one, thought Obama's willingness to truly wrestle with the difficult questions (instead of offer a slick, canned answer) demonstrated an ability to be authentic. McCain, however, came across as an overly-rehearsed career politician. He answered Warren's questions in an abrupt, almost disinterested, way...as though he was able to spout off his political stances ad nauseum without being able to think what was being asked.
These two men are politicians, which means we should trust them at our own peril. It just seemed like Ms. Motte's observations came off biased and intellectually lazy...or, shall I say, "shoddy and unprofessional".
It's interesting how two people can watch the same thing and arrive at completely opposite conclusions.
Ms. Motte thought Obama came across as "shoddy and unprofessional" in his inability to answer Warren's questions to her satisfaction. She accuses a man she's never met as someone who "needs to be liked" because he desires to bring people together.
I, for one, thought Obama's willingness to truly wrestle with the difficult questions (instead of offer a slick, canned answer) demonstrated an ability to be authentic. McCain, however, came across as an overly-rehearsed career politician. He answered Warren's questions in an abrupt, almost disinterested, way...as though he was able to spout off his political stances ad nauseum without being able to think critically about what was being asked.
These two men are politicians, which means we should trust them at our own peril. It just seemed like Ms. Motte's observations came off biased and intellectually lazy...or, shall I say, "shoddy and unprofessional".
McCain's a fake, phony fraud who insults all POWs with his exploitation of that aspect of his life.
Here's what normal people think of McCain:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/cafferty.mccain/?iref=hpmostpop
McCain's a fake, phony fraud who insults all POWs with his exploitation of that aspect of his life.
The reason this doesn't work is that, unlike John Kerry, none of the people who shared the accommodations of the Hanoi Hilton with McCain seem to think he is a phony or appear to feel insulted or exploited. I can understand why you don't like it; it makes your guy look less like a messiah and more like a shallow youth to "regular people".
Here's what normal people think of McCain:
Yeah, Jack Cafferty, regular guy. You can just see him driving up to his private parking space at CNN in his old pick-up truck and walking up to his plush office carrying a beat up lunch pail, just like the rest of us regular folk.
Here's what normal people think of McCain:
Yeah, Jack Cafferty, regular guy. You can just see him driving up to his private parking space at CNN in his old pick-up truck and walking up to his plush office carrying a beat up lunch pail, just like the rest of us regular folk.
Sorry, forgot to close italics in previous post.
Wrestling earnestly with difficult questions is a good thing. Wrestling continuously without ever pinning or being pinned is not. We are electing an executive officer, not a sophist in chief.
As a sitting senator hoping to become president, the assertion that taking a stand on when laws that protect human life should come into effect is above his paygrade is the equivalent of punting on first down.
Ken, you took the words out my mouth and beat me to it. Sophist in chief, nice.
A person can reflect and wrestle with issues that are ones of opinion, not fact. McCain proudly proclaimed the fact that life begins at conception. To see Obama "reflect" and "wrestle" with the issue of abortion shows me he's either pandering to his base and choosing his words carefully, or he really thinks a baby in the womb isn't alive. (Judging by his IL State Legislature record, it's probably the latter.)
OR, maybe Obama has no ideas of his own, and he was just desparately searching his brain for his rehearsed slogans. With a couple hundred "uh's" and "um's" for good emasure, of course.
ucfengr
Yeah, Jack Cafferty, regular guy. You can just see him driving up to his private parking space at CNN in his old pick-up truck and walking up to his plush office carrying a beat up lunch pail, just like the rest of us regular folk.
Don't you hate it when Republicans play the class warfare game? Why should we tolerate ucfengr's Marxist-lite rhetoric!!!!
Anyway, I hope that's not what Jack drives. It would be a shame if he ever had to give McCain a ride & John would have to suffer the indignity of his $550 shoes had to rest on such messy floor boards.
P>S>
Welcome back Joe but why not give us an update? Are you planning a major redesign of your blog or did you just need some time off?
A person can reflect and wrestle with issues that are ones of opinion, not fact. McCain proudly proclaimed the fact that life begins at conception
If you want to play that game McCain's also incorrect. Sperms and the egg cell are alive before conception.
I didn't watch the event but was he questioned about his support of stem cell research?
McCain simultaneously said that life begins at conception, but wouldn't back away from supporting embryonic stem cell research. Straight talk, maybe, but self-contradicting.
Here's McCain's answer to the stem cell question. I don't agree with his position, but it sounds well thought out to me.
(from part 6 of the computerized transcript at http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/)
20 A FOR THOSE OF US IN THE PRO LIFE COMMUNITY, THIS
21 HAS BEEN A GREAT STRUGGLE AND A TERRIBLE DILEMMA BECAUSE
22 WE'RE ALSO TAUGHT OTHER OBLIGATIONS THAT WE HAVE AS WELL.
23 I'VE COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF STEM CELL RESEARCH, BUT I AM
24 WILDLY OPTIMISTIC THAT SKIN CELL RESEARCH WHICH IS COMING
25 MORE AND MORE INTO FOCUS AND PRACTICABILITY WILL MAKE THIS 1 DEBATE AN ECONOMIC ONE.
Sorry, I meant part 5.
Sounds to me that if "struggling" with an issue is pandering for Obama it is also pandering for McCain.
The only difference is that McCain seems to believe science will provide a getaway from the moral/ethical question....I assume 'skin cell research' means something like stem cells that don't come from destryong embroys.
Perhaps Joe would have been happier if Obama had speculated that artifical wombs and womb transplants will soon make the abortion debate moot.
Boonton wrote: "I assume 'skin cell research' means something like stem cells that don't come from destroying embryos."
McCain was referring to a breakthrough in Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. It's not that "science will provide a getaway from the moral/ethical question"; it already has! With the iPS breakthrough, we don't need to cross that moral threshold into dealing with embryonic stem cells. Incidentally, there have been 75 advances via research of adult stem cells over the years...ZERO via embryonic.
As far as I'm concerned, the debate already is academic.
Welcome back Joe but why not give us an update? Are you planning a major redesign of your blog or did you just need some time off?
Another demonstration that boonton really doesn't read posts before responding to them. If he had bothered, he would have noticed that Joe Carter's name is nowhere on the post. It looks like the article was written by Rachel Motte and posted by Dustin Steeve.
Don't you hate it when Republicans play the class warfare game?
Do you really want to make the case that the norm for people in the US is being an elite network journalist? Or that an elite network journalist would reflect the opinions of the typical resident of Topeka, Kansas or College Station, Texas, for example? Or are you just trying to be funny? If the latter, try harder.
If McCain pandered, he never would have angered his base. Try again.
As for wrestling with "issues," this is appropriate, perhaps, for mainstream Protestants, who "wrestle" with the basic tenets of Christianity. One doesn't "wrestle" with morals, which are, by definition, black and white.
If he had bothered, he would have noticed that Joe Carter's name is nowhere on the post.
Yea, didn't read the end note. I guess Joe will leave us guessing about the big changes.
Do you really want to make the case that the norm for people in the US is being an elite network journalist?
Jack's an 'elite network journalist'? I just thought he was average. Anyway, Mumon simply said he was a 'normal person' and I don't see any reason why he isn't. I'm not sure why you seem to think a normal American has a standard of living somewhere between "Deliverence" and "Coal Miners Daughter"
ucfengr:
none of the people who shared the accommodations of the Hanoi Hilton with McCain seem to think he is a phony or appear to feel insulted or exploited
Nope. False.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html
ufengr:
Also, re: Cafferty: I bet he knows how many residences he has.
But seriously, can't we just end this whole charade?
People like Joe Carter, Rachel Motte, Hugh Hewitt, and their ilk are not any kind of religious people, they are paid professional propagandists for a repugnant party.
They are paid liars, in effect.
The idea that there's any pretense to "morality" or "Christianity" is pathetic nonsense.
There is no "morality" that means "doing the right thing" that has to do with getting paid to lie to get people into positions of power so they can further line the pockets of the very wealthiest at the expense of the poor and middle classes everywhere.
Really, it's all about being an apologist for thieves and murderers. And we're talking real murders, of born people, not zygotes.
Updates:
- Lt. Gen. Robert Gard makes my point: John McCain insults our troops in uniform, and the experience of POWs by trying to exploit it for political gain:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/21/205255/705/324/572249
- This Youtube video says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7PfSEtiXPw
-John McCain spends $270K on household staff:
http://nitpicker.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-says-john-mccain-is-out-of-touch.html
The only thing John McCain is "authentically" is a phony cranky hot-tempered rich guy who cheated on his first wife.
John McCain hates ordinary Americans, and has nothing but contempt for you.
I sense a rapid shift from BDS to MDS.
Miss Motte, what you have said hits home, maybe pulling some of us out of our comfort zones a little. But please keep writing, I will keep reading.
I listened to some of the sound bites and heard applause when Obama disrespected Clarence Thomas. As far as I'm concerned those people should be ashamed to call themsleves Christians. The way Obama talked about a fellow brother in Christ was beyond political disagreement and crossed over into hate. Those people a Saddleback should be ashamed.
Clara,
When did Obama disrespect Clarence Thomas? This is what I found from the transcript (sorry about the annoying caps, lowercase letters don't seem to have hit Saddleback yet):
From the transcript
"Q. THE COURTS. LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY. WHICH
5 EXISTING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WOULD YOU NOT HAVE
6 NOMINATED?
7 A. THAT'S A GOOD ONE. THAT'S A GOOD ONE.
8 I WOULD NOT HAVE NOMINATED CLARENCE THOMAS.
9 I DON'T THINK THAT HE. I DON'T THINK THAT HE WAS A
10 STRONG ENOUGH JURIST OR LEGAL THINKER AT THE TIME FOR
11 THAT ELEVATION. SETTING ASIDE THE FACT THAT I
12 PROFOUNDLY DISAGREE WITH HIS INTERPRETATION OF A LOT OF
13 CONSTITUTION."
http://rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-02.txt
I'm sorry if I missed some other mention of Thomas but if this is it I'm perplexed at how you can describe this as "beyond political disagreement and crossed over into hate".
Yes, McCain is to be respected for his willingness to serve his country, but what about the fact the Vietnam was fundamentally immoral and even McCain no longer defends it?
59,000 Americans and 3 million Asians died in the Vietnam war. What was the purpose of the Vietnam war-what was it's just cause? Does a candidate get political points for serving in any war-no matter whether it was justified or not?
Notice the limits to the discussion in the Media: Everyone must honor McCain for his service in Vietnam. No one can question the morality of the war, let alone call it for what it was, an act of aggression and genocide on Vietnam and Laos.
Yes, McCain is to be respected for his willingness to serve his country, but what about the fact the Vietnam was fundamentally immoral and even McCain no longer defends it?
59,000 Americans and 3 million Asians died in the Vietnam war. What was the purpose of the Vietnam war-what was it's just cause? Does a candidate get political points for serving in any war-no matter whether it was justified or not?
Notice the limits to the discussion in the Media: Everyone must honor McCain for his service in Vietnam. No one can question the morality of the war, let alone call it for what it was, an act of aggression and genocide on Vietnam and Laos.
I think Clara K's post is a nice illustration of what Andrew Sullivan calls the Christianist mindset.
An appointment to the Supreme Court is just that. An appointment to a gov't job. A very important job but still a job. Like any other job the qualifications should be the ability to do the job. It isn't spoils for your particular religious or ethnic grop.
She cits Obama and the clappers as being guilty of 'hate' because Thomas is supposedly a Christian and if Obama is one then he cannot oppose his appointment to the SC.
Leave aside the fact that Obama was asked to name a specific member of the SC he would not have appointed (since I think all the members are Christians except one who is Jewish it would have been pretty hard not to have named a Christian he would have opposed). This type of thinking is the direct opposite of what America is about. People like Clara should spend some time in a place like Beruit where gov't positions have to rotate between pre-defined religious groups in order to keep the peace so they can learn the implications of what it is they advocate.
Here, let me fix that for you:
No one can question the morality of the war, let alone call it for what it was, an act of aggression and genocide on Vietnam and Laos perpetrated by communist thugs sponsored by the likes of Red China and the U.S.S.R. and which we abetted by withdrawing our support.
Mumon,
There's nothing wrong with being rich and having a paid staff. McCain and his wife have given 24 - 30% of their income to charity.
In comparison, Obama, around 1%, going up to 6 & 8% the last couple of years.
In comparison, McCain is far more generous than me, and I suspect, more than many of the Christian and non-Christian commentators reading this.
One of those evil residences that McCain's family owns is occupied by one of Cindy McCain's elderly aunts. So, it's not such a big deal if John doesn't know exactly how many condo's his wife has invested in. He's never been to some of the properties, and that doesn't bother me either.
McCain seems to be carrying out on a personal level, Obama's reference to the Biblical mandate to help the least of our brothers.
That's really the difference between liberals and conservatives on helping the poor. Just an observation here, not a judgement... liberals believe we should use the government to force everyone to help the poor. (Many) Conservatives believe people should help others themselves, and not wait for the government to do it. Not all conservatives follow through with that, but I'm proud that it seems the McCains really do that.
Now, I don't blame Barack Obama that his half-brothers around the world are living in poverty. Vanity Fair just found a 1/2 brother in Africa living in a hut on $1 a day. I can understand how Barack Obama has not had contact with his 1/2 brother throughout his life due to his father leaving, etc. If he didn't know his relatives were in such dire straits, I think he can be excused.
But NOW that he knows about this, will he follow his own advice and help out the least of his brothers? Will he imitate the example of McCain, who provides housing for an elderly aunt instead of letting that woman be homeless? Or, is he paralyzed and unable to help until the governments of the world steps in and picks those people with personal connections to Obama up.
Smntheory,
Ah yes, the old "if only we had the will to win and let the commanders do what they needed to do...we could have 'won' Vietnam..." routine-very familiar with it already.
Few points:
I don't begrudge McCain his fortune but I do notice Republican's like to play the class warfare game with critics of theirs. Look at ucfengr's hysterical speculation about what type of car 'media elite' Jack Caf. drives to work in.
It seems like a 'regular guy' can't criticize the GOP unless it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he lives in squalor, has never eaten at a better place than McDonald's & can only have a color TV if it doesn't that new fangled 'stero' sound....If these conditions aren't meant the critic is a pampered 'elitist'. GOPers, of course, are free to wipe their butt with the $20 toilet paper roll.
I also think it's great that McCain, after ditching his first wife and marrying a woman who inherited a beer distributing fortune in the hundreds of millions, gives lots of money to charity and has plenty left over to keep relatives in their own condos and homes. Sure his wife could do a bit better. For example, like Obama she too has a half-sister who got nothing out of her father's will. His wife should probably at least stop referring to herself as an 'only child' in her speeches since her sister has indicated it hurts her feelings...But otherwise you're right, McCain is just like Jesus!
Regarding Obama's half brother, interesting debate about this over on Chicagoboyz.net. I'm reprinting here some interesting points I noticed on the article:
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6079.html#comment-261895
****************
1. It says the kid “now hopes to try to sort his life out by starting a course at a local technical college”… This kind of implies he isn’t quite starving to death but has options. Yes no doubt living in Kenya is not as nice as living in the US but isn’t exactly in horrible straights.
2. “Sort his life out” is ofen a phrase used when someone has problems or issues that are of their own making to some degree. Is it possible that he has problems that cannot simply be solved by tapping the rich relative for a few bucks? Is this the reason Obama’s other relatives have not brought this guys plight to his attention?
3. As a follow up, it says he is “no longer in contact with his mother”. Why? More importantly if this kid is in trouble wouldn’t his biological mother who lives in Kenya be the first person running to him and putting out the call for aid?
4. George is the youngest of Obama’s half-brothers. Like his mother, where are his older brothers and if the issue is just that he needs a few bucks why haven’t they reached out to the US on his behalf?
5. George makes a point of telling no one he is related to Obama and claims he lives on a dollar a day. Did it occur to no one that it would be very foolish to do otherwise? Somehow I suspect Kenya is not the type of place where you want all your neighbors thinking you are rich or you have a rich, famous relative who could pay big bucks to help you out.
**************************
This has erupted into an interesting debate over what and how one's obligations to family members are....perhaps we can carry it over here because the characters there are pretty much ideological cartoon characters who don't seem to think about things much. Gotta fill the time somehow till Joe makes his return.....
Ah yes, the old "but the Communists wouldn't have hurt anybody if we hadn't interfered and just let them 'peacefully' take over" routine. I'm familiar with your routine too JohnW... the US always gets the blame for starting the war with Communist rebels; the 'peaceful' Communist rebels weren't as barbarous as or atrocious as the US in Vietnam; completely ignore that the majority of the Asian deaths occured after we pulled out. Go peddle your bull hockey puck elsewhere.
Actually - maybe Obama's brother will be just fine. He hasn't been infected with the government-dependency attitude of many Americans that they can't improve their lot without help from someone else:
In a story from UK Telegraph about brother in Kenya:
He will not be calling on his famous brother for help, however.
"We have only met twice, once when I was five or six, and again in 2006," he said. " I cannot say that we are close, he probably does not even think about me. I am not going to start pestering him, I don't want to look to him for help, I want to achieve things for myself."
Bravo! What a great attitude.
smmtheory, I guess you are right- it was in our vital national interest to be in Vietnam for over a decade, it was a noble cause, and everything would have been alright if the americans would have had more of a stomach for killing more or those slant eyed commies? God, Guns, and Old Glory!
I'm now voting for McCain because he has the stomach to stay in Iraq for as long as neccessary for us to win...even if it takes a hundred years and another 3 million Iraqis have to leave their country.
He hasn't been infected with the government-dependency attitude of many Americans that they can't improve their lot without help from someone else:
Hey, don't bash McCain for taking public financing. Didn't you hear he's like Jesus?
Man this disrespect is just too much. It goes beyond political disagreement and into the realm of pure hatred.
You don't lie very well JohnW.
Symtheory,
Ok, your right, I'm not voting for McCain afterall. And I still don't know why we went to war in Vietnam-they really weren't a threat to us. I guess it must have been like Iraq-we've got to fight them over there, so we won't have to fight them over here (except instead of terrorists, it was commies and the domino theory...).
Did you happen to see Aaron Brown's about the Iraqi refugee families on PBS last night? You can watch and read about it here - www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/iraqi-exodus/introduction/811/
It kind of puts a human face on our activities over there.
It appears that Sen. McCain spent half of Obama's interview in a press green room - not exactly a "cone of silence"! One of his favorite POW stories, about a cross in the sand, appears to come from the "Gulag Archipeligo"; and he married his then young wife after having her for his mistress for a year - (at least John Edwards is still married).
This is not a picture of a "real" man. I'm shocked that Christians think he is.
I was impressed that Sen. McCain admitted his mistake in his first marriage until I found out that he has never told the whole truth about it. He has always said that he was separated from his wife when he started dating Cindy (who was three years more than half his age, and the daughter of one of the richest men in Arizona). But actually he lived with his first wife until nine months after he took up with Cindy. I was also disappointed to learn that he left his first wife because he didn't like her as much after the effects of a terrible automobile accident. To me, a family values person is someone that stands by a wife or husband after they are disabled like that, not someone that goes and finds someone younger and richer and starts pursuing them while still married and living together.
My take on this is ultimately it is none of our business. We have no idea what the dynamics of his first marriage was nor his second. It is easy to make snap judgements based on facts that are public record (she is younger, richer, the other she is older and doesn't look as good after an auto accident). That only demonstrates you're good at following gossip. You weren't in the marriage and that makes it impossible for you to really know what went on unless you're claiming superhuman powers.
AS for McCain being filthy rich, living in numerous houses, wearing $500 shoes and so on...well I seem to remember GOPers having a lot of fun attacking John Kerry for marrying a rich woman and going after his Vietnam experience because 'he brought it up'.
Well McCain is the one who charged Obama with being a celebrity candidate and an elitest. It's more than fair to ask just who here is the celebrity. The guy who married his money or the guy who earned it?
Boonton,
Are being sarcastic and saying attacks on McCain are in the realm of pure hatred? Or do you believe my comment about Obama's step-brother being hatred?
No hatred here. I am giving Obama the benefit of doubt on this. If you read my comments, I stated it's entirely possible Obama didn't know about his step-brother's dire straits. No sarcasm was intended in that comment.
Then, I read that his brother didn't want to ask for help from Obama. I truly find that refreshing and I wish more people had that attitude. Where's the hatred in that?
On the other hand, the anti-McCain posters here don't seem to be holding out for any possibility that there is one shred of decency in his being.
He admits to having made mistakes in his life, and those things could be attacked. Fair game.
But instead, it seems that people want to discredit the good things he's done.
By me saying that McCain has examples in his personal life where he has tried to help 'the least of his brothers', I didn't mean to imply that Obama doesn't do the same. Although, I did compare Obama's low level of financial charity to McCain's. I assume there are many other ways Obama seeks to live out that mandate, as he cited it in the Saddleback forum.
I don't know if you're sarcasm about "McCain is Jesus" is aimed at me or McCain backers collectively - but if for my benefit, you can give it a rest. By no means do I think he's perfect. His flaws are probably easier to read than most politicians. I just pointed out a couple of things to his credit.
Obama, to me, seems like a good guy. Putting that aside... the point about liberals wanting to help through government, and Obama's belief that (perhaps not exclusively, but maybe primarily) the way you help the least of your brothers is by government action is valid. I don't think that belief makes you a good or a bad person. It's strategy about how to help - which can be judged as wise or unwise.
Conservatives (not all) believe it's better to help others through personal action, or non-profit orgs, churches, synagogues, etc., or other ways than the government. It's far from a perfect way to accomplish helping the least of us as well, but I just think it's more effective.
I don't like the idea of Obama as pres. because of his political philosophy, his voting record, and his inexperience. However, if he is elected, I look forward to him being able to use his strengths in office and I hope he does well. I just hope he's unable to implement those goals of his that go against mine. Gridlock on those selected issues would be fine with me. On other issues, and on the job of president as a whole, if he wins, I wish him great success.
Elwood
Are being sarcastic and saying attacks on McCain are in the realm of pure hatred?
Nope.
Or do you believe my comment about Obama's step-brother being hatred?
Errr, you mean half-brother? In either case no.
Perhaps you're confusing me with the earlier poster who chided Obama for showing 'hatred' toward Justice Thomas when the transcript indicated Obama's criticism of him was about as mild as one could be and still be a critic.
I don't know if you're sarcasm about "McCain is Jesus" is aimed at me or McCain backers collectively - but if for my benefit, you can give it a rest. By no means do I think he's perfect. His flaws are probably easier to read than most politicians. I just pointed out a couple of things to his credit.
Well, to be frank the answer is no. I'm not going to judge McCain's first marriage but you're asking too much here. He married a woman with an insane amount of money. Her elderly aunt is given a nice place to live. I'm not going to put up with comparing McCain to Jesus or even to simply citing this as an example of Jesus's call to care for the least of us for two very clear reasons:
1. When you have an insane amount of money, by which I mean more than you and your immediate family and your near descendants will ever need to live a life of well above average lifestyle I'm less impressed that near family members are taken care of or even that checks are written to charitable institutions...or even a larger portion goes to charity than is given by the average American.
2. This is his wife's aunt. While I don't know the dynamics of their marriage I think it's more than fair to say she probably made the call to use her money to care for her. Granted I don't think McCain put up any big fuss over it (and if he did she could easily point out that he's the one who married the money and not the other way around) this is hardly any great moment in charity here.
So I'd say I'm willing to meet in the middle and say I'm not bashing McCain in this area but I'm also not going to praise him. A man who was cold hearted, calculating and didn't give a wiff for others would just as likely be doing the same thing if only for appearances sake.
Obama, to me, seems like a good guy. Putting that aside... the point about liberals wanting to help through government, and Obama's belief that (perhaps not exclusively, but maybe primarily) the way you help the least of your brothers is by government action is valid. I don't think that belief makes you a good or a bad person. It's strategy about how to help - which can be judged as wise or unwise.
This, I think, is a sneaky little slide of hand. Obama never said or indicated that he wasn't helping his half-brother because he thought 'government' would be better at it (what gov't? Kenya's? US Aid? What?) At least from the article I saw it was pretty clear Obama didn't even know this guy was in trouble...and it's not even clear he is in trouble in any way that could easily be solved with a few bucks.
Boonton -
I was referring to "realm of pure hatred" from you from back on the 23rd:
"Hey, don't bash McCain for taking public financing. Didn't you hear he's like Jesus?
Man this disrespect is just too much. It goes beyond political disagreement and into the realm of pure hatred."
Also - thanks for overlooking my typo's.
Actually, you're correct. Cindy McCain probably does deserve more of the credit for their charity, taking care of her aunt, and other philanthropy. Her work in 1994 with Doctors Without Borders in Rwanda speaks well of her too:
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelGerson/2008/07/23/cindy_mccain_and_the_smell_of_death
You're right that when you are that rich, putting up an aunt in a condo does not mean you are the second coming of Gandhi. However, it shouldn't be used as ammo that one is out of touch, either. That's the main point, I should have left it at that. His family owning that many homes, and the fact that he didn't know exactly how many, is mitigated by the fact that even if they own them, there are valid reasons why he might not know the exact number.
I agree - we can meet in the middle on this.
Re: my comments on Obama...
I meant to move on from the issue of his half-brother. I think that is equally irrelevant than the number of homes McCain family owns.
However, this belief that government is the proper vehicle for helping "the least of these" is not shied away from by some God-fearing liberals I know. They would readily admit such a thought. So I don't think it's a smear if I suspect that Obama thinks that way too. I just disagree with him. And, even if he thinks that way, that doesn't mean he thinks that's the exclusive way to help those that deserve help. I don't know the man.
Sorry for the confusion.... I mistakenly mixed too unrelated arguments together.
1. McCain is not a bad guy just because his family owns a lot of houses.
2. Riffing off of Obama's "least of these" reference at Saddleback, an opinion about different approaches to helping people. (And, I admit, inferring that now that Obama knows about his half-brother, now he needs to help him out in order to be authentic in that statement.
Turns out, his brother doesn't want any help, and, it's undetermined if he deserves any help even if he asked for it. If he did want help, AND he deserved it (he was responsible and didn't get himself into trouble, etc.), then I certainly hope Obama would provide it. That's a hypothetical that can't be answered.)
Also - thanks for overlooking my typo's.
No problem, I'm sure you overlook plenty more from me! YOu were just catching some left over sarcasm from that silly Justice Thomas post. Nothing more there. Also it is a bit amusing that a supposed government-dependency basher like McCain is taking public financing while Obama appears to have done a pretty good job collecting lots of small scale donations but hey that's politics for you.
Actually, you're correct. Cindy McCain probably does deserve more of the credit for their charity, taking care of her aunt, and other philanthropy.
I would differentiate taking care of her aunt from charity. Taking care of family is a responsibility but it can also be selfish. Even Tony Soprano was willing to spend big bucks to give his kids the best education and his mother the nicest nursing home money can buy. There's nothing wrong with spending your money but don't expect to get a medal for it. What's next, a comparision of Paris Hilton to Jesus?!
However, this belief that government is the proper vehicle for helping "the least of these" is not shied away from by some God-fearing liberals I know. They would readily admit such a thought.
Change "the" to "a" and I think you have an accurate statement. Neither Obama's statements or actions indicate that he feels gov't aid is a substitute for individual help and charity. Likewise I don't think any fair reading of McCain's statements or actions indicate the he feels personal chairty should replace all gov't aid (although I understand around election time many Republicans like to pretend this is their policy).
I agree it's none of my business how many McCain McMansions there are. He married money and money does things like buy houses. I do think, though, it's fair to give him some dings for this since he just recently tried to position himself as the non-celebrity, non-elitest candidate. In contrast, Obama's income while above average (though not that much above considering his education), has largely been both earned and not that excessive until he made a few million by writing two best selling books (again an earned fortune, not a jackpot won at the wedding alter). While I'm sure they could donate a bit more the fact is it's quite sensible they are more frugal given that he has a young family with kids who haven't even hit college yet. Character wise I think it's better that he has a reputation for being something of a penny pincher. After the last 8 years I don't think we need someone whose daily experience with money is along the lines of winning the lottery ten times over.
Turns out, his brother doesn't want any help, and, it's undetermined if he deserves any help even if he asked for it. If he did want help, AND he deserved it (he was responsible and didn't get himself into trouble, etc.), then I certainly hope Obama would provide it. That's a hypothetical that can't be answered.)
I would hope so too. Although the fact is you gotta be careful with family members and money....especially when you're dealing with a family member who may be close in title but in reality you know little or nothing about. What bothered me about his story is that he seems to have little or no contact with his much closer relatives in Kenya. Perhaps he is an independent soul striking out on his own or maybe he is the type that keeps landing in trouble. Another possibility I thought is a lot more down to earth. Imagine you live in Kenya and all your neighbors live on $1 a day or so. Do you want people to:
1. Know you have a rich overseas relative....one who could easily pay a small fortune to ensure your safety?
2. Suspect you're receiving even a small sum of money from him on a regular basis?
The other issue is just how and which family members you have an ethical duty to be close too. This has been something of a raging debate over at Chicagobyz but unfortunately the nuts there just aren't as salty as the ones here. I tend to find that the members you are close too do not often follow strict blood lines. In my personal life it seems like most of my efforts now are indirectly revolving around a pregnant niece-in-law who very might end up with one of those problem late-term pregnancies the last time we talked about partial birth abortion. My wife discovered she has two half-brothers (she is adopted and is starting the birth family exploration gig)....yet despite that relationship being much closer blood-wise no one feels any great need to go out of their way for them (not that they need any help that we know about at the moment).
From what I've read about Obama (and I haven't read his books, just some excerpts and summaries online)...it seems he went looking for his father with some fantasies about what he would find only to discover the guy was a disappointment and something of a jerk. In the process though, he meet many relatives on his father's side that he would never have known. I can't really blame him if he never developed close relations with them and to argue that having found them one now has a duty to keep tabs on them and keep them all doing ok is a bit much IMO. If that's the policy then people are just going to not bother even finding 'lost' family members which would be a shame because sometimes it does work out for the better.
Following the comments on this thread has been interesting. I'm curious, though, as to whether anyone else watched the forum with an eye to some of the less well-publicized issues that came up. I was a little disappointed that Warren didn't get to some of the social justice issues he has championed, but I thought the discussions shed a lot of light on the candidates' perspectives here, if only indirectly. (I must say though, I was cheering when Warren asked about the orphan crisis, and especially human trafficking. If only these problems got more attention...from Christians and media alike!)
Sen. Obama has generally devoted more attention to health and development issues than Sen. McCain has, and that trend seemed to continue at the forum, broadly speaking. The candidates' responses to questions about faith and evil were particularly revealing on this point, I thought.
If anyone is interested, I have written about the forum from the perspective outlined above at http://faithandaids.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/obama-and-mccain-at-saddleback/
boat trust ocean global letter this
land usa house day busy head water kitchen
I don't say senator Obama is the antichrist. I do respect him. He has different opinions on things and he is always wrong.
But for Christians I am clearly the better choice for the presidency.
I understand these people. They are patriots and good Americans. However, I am playing fair.