Barack Obama's unprecedented use of online advocacy tools left the GOP in the dust this last campaign cycle. Not only was his campaign more "plugged-in" than any other, but Obama also managed to turn many, many of his online supporters into offline activists. No major campaign will be able to get by after this without learning how to replicate Obama's success. (Politically inclined tech geeks the world over should be rejoicing now...)

The GOP - and, for that matter, the Conservative movement as a whole - is going to have to get its technological act together if it wants to win any future elections. Conservatives do well in talk radio, but the Left owns the internet. It's time for the Right to stop treating the internet like just another communications medium and to start using it to spark real-world action.

Fortunately there are a number of young activists who recognize this and are hard at work finding ways to bring Conservatives up to speed. Check out sites like The Next Right, the #dontgo Revolution, and Rebuild The Party to see what I mean. Keep an eye on what strategists like Patrick Ruffini and Matt Lewis are saying. You'll get the idea.

In addition, a growing number of Conservatives have begun to band together on Twitter just over the past couple of days. Take a look at the Top Conservatives on Twitter list if you're ready to join in the brainstorming, strategizing and general hubbub there.

Several years ago I had the privilege of meeting Brant DeBow at GodblogCon. At the time, Brant was among the few Christians who were aggressively pioneering the podcast side of the web and he freely gave of his services to help us podcast our conference. Now Brant is helping to take Christians into another rapidly growing field of tech: the iPhone application.

Just in time for the beginning of the church year, Brant and his team have introduced an Advent focused app for the iPhone. It's only .99 cents and 10% of the proceeds go to WorldVision, an organization dedicated to bringing aid and the good news of the gospel to those in need around the world. The app looks stylish and useful, costs very little, and you would be supporting a company that understands the importance of loving their neighbor. I encourage you to check them out:

Here's a link to open the app in iTunes.
Here's a link to visit the app's website.

By Robin Dembroff

President-elect Barack Obama has announced his planned nominee for Secretary of State, and it's 'surprisingly expected': Senator Hillary Clinton.

The choice sparks both approval and doubt in my mind.

On the one hand, it is a smart move. Obama will gain political advantage by Clinton's appointment. Not being highly experienced in DC, Obama does not have the same political 'clout' that the Clintons have through their connections and global name recognition. Having Sen. Clinton as Secretary of State, Obama will probably be in a position to pull strings on the Hill and gain financial supporters that he would not be able to otherwise.

However, in light of Obama's basic platforms in the recent election, I have to express some trepidation about Clinton's nomination. I believe Obama was elected because he presented a message of hope through drastic, necessary changes in DC...

But what is more "ho-hum" than another Clinton in the White House?
(Well, at least he's not nominating Jeb Bush or something, eh?)

Obama was elected based on his ability to break out of the box, and now this nomination appears to be his jumping back into it. Clinton, even the name itself, represents the "business-as-usual" in DC. So he gains some connections...but what good are connections if you can only get them by minimizing what you needed them for in the first place?

Transformation, for good or bad, does not typically come through normalcy: Lenin didn't overthrow the Tsar through the Duma, and Martin Luther King Jr. didn't operate his social revolution through Congress.

Obama's 'safe' choice leads me to wonder if, less than a month after his election, he is already caving under the Hill's pressure to conform. I hope I'm wrong. But, man...
I was really hoping for a Bush/Clinton-free White House for the first time in nearly thirty years.

Robin Dembroff is a Sophomore in the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University majoring in Humanities, with an emphasis in Philosophy. After college, she is interested in pursuing speechwriting within the political arena.

Oil prices are dropping. For many, including myself, this comes as a relief. However, there are some for whom dropping oil prices pose a critical problem: American auto makers. A quick case study of Ford Motor Company helps us to see why.

Ford's best selling product has been their F-Series. In fact, Ford is the most popular truck company in the world if one judges such things by sales figures. In 2004, trucks and SUVs accounted for 70% of Ford's sales. However, recent dramatic increases in oil prices have altered consumer demand causing the truck and SUV market to decline dramatically. Added to this was pressure from Congress and environmental groups for higher mileage standards on all vehicles. Were these trends to continue, or at least maintain current levels, Ford has an expensive yet simple solution: change their factories to produce smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Ford is currently pursuing this solution and plans to reduce their sales of trucks and SUVs to 34%.

Here's the problem: what happens when oil prices drop and consumer demand returns to trucks and SUVs?

Have you ever seen a literary character eclipse an author?

Take Captain Kirk, for example: though he is only a fictional character, he's much more frequently remembered than his creator, Gene Roddenberry. Nearly everyone recognizes Kirk, but not everyone knows who Roddenberry was. And when's the last time you saw William Shatner on TV and didn't immediately think "There's Captain Kirk"? Shatner is a human being and thus is much more real than a character he used to play on TV. Plus, he has played other characters--so why do we think of him as Kirk?

Sometimes a character can wield such imaginative force that he overwhelms his author and his portrayer. Similarly, sometimes the character of Socrates is so prominent in Plato's writings that it's easy to forget that it was Plato who wrote them and not Socrates.

By Robin Dembroff

Hearts should be breaking.

In a story released yesterday, November 13, on FoxNews, a report was given of an elderly woman who attended a "No on Prop 8" rally in order to support traditional marriage.

Sixty-nine year old Phyllis Burgess came holding a large foam cross, and video footage reveals the brutality with which she was received by the "rally," or better termed, "mob." I would encourage everyone to watch the footage and reflect on the method by which we "exchange" ideas in our present society. As you watch, you will see the cross being ripped from her hands and trampled upon by the raging protesters.

Bringing a big cross and conservative views to a vehement liberal rally was, granted, probably not the wisest idea. However, that is no excuse for the violent retaliation of the crowd.

To add irony to insult, as Burgess tries to escape from the scene--likely to avoid being injured--the camera follows her, and one of the protesters blocks the camera's view by shoving a sign in front of Burgess' face.

And what do you think this sign said?: "Vote No on Prop 8:

Equality for All."

The road we dare not...trample?

This leads me to wonder: if those who claim to believe the ideology act in a way that spits on their own theory, what is their foundation for expecting it of others?

Robin Dembroff is a Sophomore in the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University majoring in Humanities, with an emphasis in Philosophy. After college, she is interested in pursuing speechwriting within the political arena.

Interesting:

The physics of this dunk by LeBron James

Amusing:

Sound smarter than you are. Smugopedia.

Bling

"Although all the rage today, bling couldn't have existed a few years ago; FDR, after all, made the private ownership of gold illegal and confiscated all gold in the country."

Thanks to projects like archive.org, this post will probably still be online when you are dead.

Weird, huh?

In the beginning of Plato's Phaedo Phaedo describes to Echectrates the conversation Socrates had with his friends in his prison cell while he awaited execution. Phaedo, who was present for the discussion, reports that he and Socrates' other companions experienced "an unaccustomed mixture of pleasure and pain."(Phaedo 59a6.) Presumably, he enjoyed spending time with Socrates, but was saddened to know that his friend would soon die.

It must have been strange to converse with the knowledge that Socrates would be dead in a number of hours. The coming death was certain-Socrates had been given a number of opportunities to escape from prison in the past and had refused them. He was scheduled to die at sundown. As the dialog begins in the morning, the men in the prison cell had an entire day to count down the hours to Socrates' death.

Tolerance: "A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own."

From the Desert Sun:

The woman at the center of a disturbance that erupted at a protest against the gay marriage ban on Friday will be pressing charges, The Desert Sun has learned.

Phyllis Burgess alleges that she was assaulted as she carried a Styrofoam cross through the crowd at a No on Proposition 8 rally. The 69-year-old Palm Springs resident originally declined to press charges when asked by police and joked she felt lucky, at least she didn't lose her wig in the tussle like Cloris Leachman did on Dancing with the Stars.

"I guess I didn't see the gravity of the whole thing and how it was being portrayed to the public," Burgess said. "People are incensed. They seem to want some kind of justice."

What was planned as a peaceful candlelight service in front of City Hall took a hostile turn when the crowd began pushing and a cross was torn from Burgess' arms. The cross ended up in pieces on the ground.

The crowd chanted, "Go home!" "Nazi!" and "shame on you!" as organizers pleaded with the crowd to ignore the woman. About 500 protesters attended the event, the largest in the county since 52 percent of voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment that banned same-sex marriage.

Palm Springs Police made no arrests, but say they spent about 40 minutes on Saturday trying to convince Burgess to press charges.

Lt. Dennis Graham said he tried to convince her how important it was to file a police report.

Detectives, he said, are reviewing video taken at the rally to try and identify possible suspects.

The charges likely would be assault and vandalism, both misdemeanors, Graham said.

Thank you to all of our readers here who are veterans. I appreciate the work you have done and the sacrifices you have made for the rest of us.

Thank you to my brother-in-law John, who ships out to Iraq for the first time in just a few days. Thank you also to my other brother-in-law, Joey.

Today I am thankful especially for the service of a very dear childhood friend, Lcpl Darin Thomas Settle. He died in Iraq 2 ½ years ago.

Thank you, veterans, for allowing us to honor you. It is good for us to remember your service, and you do us a great service by permitting us to do so.

Are you trying to launch the next best place in the blogosphere? Hoping to attract a few new readers? Or perhaps just experiencing writer's block (blogger's block?) and looking for some new material?

Boy have I been there. That's why I was so excited when Thomas Nelson CEO Michael Hyatt announced a shiny new book review program.

It's very simple: just go to http://brb.thomasnelson.com, create a free account, and request your first book. All they ask is a 200 minimum word review to be posted on your blog, sent to them, and posted on consumer retail web sites like amazon.com.

I haven't requested my first book yet because I want to catch up with my quickly-growing stack of review books from elsewhere first... but stay tuned!

By Matthew Anderson

I have always thought that every academic--or wannabe, such as myself--ought have one or two hypotheses that are held very loosely, are somewhat defensible but impossible to prove, and just fringe enough to make academic parties mildly interesting.

One such hypothesis that I have occasionally advanced is that G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy is the most important work of the 21st century, even though it was written in the 20th.
Though Chesterton attained more fame during his than C.S. Lewis--he was greeted by massive crowds on his trips around the world-- by the beginning of World War Two his position as chief apologist and defender of the faith had been taken over by Lewis. In particular, Chesterton's influence on American evangelicalism has been relatively non-existent compared to Lewis's.

And no wonder: Lewis' Mere Christianity, which has influenced numerous evangelical leaders over the past few decades, is a masterfully written apologetic for the truth of Christianity. The discovery of Lewis helped many evangelicals in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s realize the importance of having a faith that was as intellectual as it was spiritual.

Yet the situation within evangelicalism--and without--has now changed, and Mere Christianity is an apologetic suited to its time. While evangelicals have made significant strides in recovering the life of the mind, it is now en vogue to criticize evangelical Christianity as too propositional. The new generation of post-modern evangelicals is moved more by the story of Christianity than its ideas, and more prone to appeal to the imagination than the intellect.

Such critics would do well to consider Orthodoxy.

By Robert Stevenson

Last night, for the first time, a black man accepted his election as the next President of the United States. In that sense, today is a glorious and redemptive day in American history. As I look forward and ask "what is a young conservative to do?," let us consider what we have seen.

In the past eight years, President Bush has been maligned in ways that were not only personally vicious, but also demeaning to the office of the President. I pray, whatever our opinions, that we treat our next chief executive with the highest respect and dignity, as befits his office.

Someday America will stray so far from its founding that the time for revolution would be recognized even by Burke, and even the most conservative among us will demand radical, violent change. Not today, and not soon. Up to that day I will serve my country. Up to that day, whether he be republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, intelligent or idiotic, Christian, atheist, or Muslim, I will always, always take a bullet for the President of the United States.

President-elect Obama is certainly not the sort of leader America needs. His radical social ideas, his background is shady and, perhaps worst of all, he seems out of step with the Burkian, Jeffersonian, and Lockeian ideals upon which this nation rests. Nevertheless, God save the President of the United States, and God save Senator Barack Obama.

Robert Stevenson is a Senior at Biola University and a student at the Torrey Honors Institute. Robert is a candidate in the United States Marine Corps and has completed Marine Corps Officer Training. In addition to his work as a student and for the Marine Corps, Robert has worked as an assistant producer for the Hugh Hewitt Show.

Californians, today you are being asked to vote on one of the most critical pieces of legislation that we have yet seen. I have given an extensive argument for why I believe it is moral and just to support proposition 8. The argument by those opposing proposition 8 is that it is wrong and unfair. They say that Proposition 8 has nothing to do with what goes on in your family or my family and everything to do with affirming love. However, the education that your children receive in schools directly impacts your family. That opponents of proposition 8 deny this aspect of proposition 8 reveals a stunning lack of integrity on their part. Consider the evidence:

Proposition 8: Who's Really Lying?

Public Records Show Proposition 8 Opponents Want Gay Marriage To Be Taught In Public Schools - 'The earlier the better.'

The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign's claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts. Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an "opt out" for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.

Recently, I posted a number of posts about California Proposition 8. This is an emotionally charged issue with good thoughts on both sides.  Not surprisingly, my posts sparked debate in the comment sections where a number of excellent questions were raised. Richard Hollis is one commentator who raised especially thoughtful questions. As a result of the questions raised, especially by Richard, I have decided to write my thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage from the ground up and have asked Richard to respond. Below is my essay followed by Richard's response. Please note, when I sent Richard my essay, I had not yet added links to my sources. Richard and readers of Evangelical Outpost - thank you for your thoughtful read and consideration of this post. - Dustin Steeve.

The upcoming proposition amending the constitution in the state of California to affirm marriage gives us opportunity to pause and reflect. Since 1970, marriage has endured a series of devastating attacks. In January 1970 the Family Law Act was signed by California Governor Ronald Reagan and "no-fault divorce" was written into law. Reagan would later cite this as one of his greatest regrets. The intent of the law was to help Californians separate amicably without having to contrive reasons for obtaining a divorce. As the explosive increase in divorces since 1970 attests, the effect of the law was that it hurt marriage.

Presently, proposition 8 is giving Californians a rare opportunity to stop further tampering of marriage through law.  As we consider the proposition, reason, empirical evidence, and morality ought to inform us. Each of these has led me to the decision to affirm marriage by voting yes on proposition 8.

In a random thought experiment today, I began listing the qualifications that I would look for in a person that I would choose to hire as an executive administrator of something or other (provided, of course, that I ever found myself in a position to do so).
1. Integrity & moral character
2. Good work ethic
3. Intelligence & sound reasoning
4. Independence & free thinking
5. Passion & motivation
6. Conviction & belief
7. Determination & commitment
8. Loyalty & teamwork
9. Skill-set & knowledge

There may be one or two others that upon further reflection I would add to this list, but most of these are in no particular order. Qualification #9, however, is very deliberately placed at the bottom of the list, because without all the others I really didn't care if that one was present in the candidate or not. He or she might be an encyclopedia of information on the exact area of expertise that I was looking for, but if he had a lousy work ethic or was simply untrustworthy, there's no way I would hire him.

Categories can be useful. Most people seem to realize this: tax brackets, biological taxonomy, or fantasy football statistics disappearing seems unlikely. Every day, every moment of our lives, we both consciously and unknowingly sift and sort through senses and thoughts, placing them into folders to be referenced conveniently in the future. There is an overseer for the sorting. My mother likes to call him the "little man."

Apparently, our little man is a stubborn, crotchety geezer with an incredible aptitude for analytical discernment. He knows exactly where everything is, but must be asked nicely to retrieve information. If you poke him too hard, he'll sit down, cross his arms, and say through pursed lips, "Nope. Not getting it. Nope."

Nonetheless, I cannot help but to have developed an affinity for the metaphorical wretch. He is the manifestation of my cognitive ability to recover everything that education and environment has instilled into me.

When an elderly person and I walk towards the same door, it is my little man who reminds me to open the door for them and allow them to enter first. He tells me that a donut for breakfast is not equal to fruit and yogurt, and watching The Office for hours is, to my dismay, unacceptable. Every mannerism, manner, and judgment of material is the result of acting upon my life's mental absorption and storage. And what good would knowledge be without the ability to utilize it in a way that will benefit both my neighbors and myself?

That is why I feel a sense of gratitude to my "little man." He is responsible for guiding me, through referencing what I already know, to my every reaction to a social situation, every moral judgment, every decision for prudence. My "little man," and everyone's for that matter, is the reason we can create order and respect in a world of constant contrasts.

My affection has led to indignation at constant cultural pressure to murder him.

A little over a year and a half ago I began working as an intern for the Hugh Hewitt Show. Recently, I quit this position due to my graduation from college and my decision to pursue other career opportunities. During my brief but wonderful time working for Hugh, I had the privilege of working with one of his co-hosts, Dean Barnett. Today, Dean passed away; in his memory I would like to share with you my impression of this good man.

For regular listeners of Hugh's show, you will be pleased to know that Dean was every bit the humorous and delightful person that his "on-air" persona made him out to be. I have several fond memories of humorous "off-air" exchanges between Dean, Duane (the show's producer) and Adam (the sound engineer). A little over a year ago, I had the opportunity to meet Dean in person and treat him to dinner. His intelligence was outshined only by his wit, each greatly entertained the dinner guests. Though Dean suffered from cystic fibrosis, he saw the disease as a motivator for great personal accomplishment and not as an excuse to wallow in the sympathies of others. He was friendly, humble in the face of great personal success, and lively. Dean's warm personality graced his insightful commentary, his brilliance cast light on dark and confusing issues important to each of his fellow citizens.

To Dean's family: Thank you for sharing him with us. Dean was an honorable and good man. I consider myself privileged to have known him. Dean Barnett, rest in peace good sir.

Sen. Barack Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, is seriously ill. No doubt many of you are aware of the senator's plans to cancel campaign stops this weekend in order to visit her. Though I am not an Obama supporter, I believe one way Christians show the love of Christ to their neighbor is through prayer in times like these. Please pray for Ms. Dunham's health (she is recovering from a hip injury) and pray also for the Lord's comfort on the senator and his family during this time.

Is Harry Potter a literary Christ figure, or the newest plot to turn you and your children into satanic evildoers?

When the Harry Potter books were new, many Christians refused to sell or even read them because of the elements of witchcraft found in the plot. It became fashionable in some Christian circles to swap Harry Potter horror stories and read books on why the fictional teenage boy was the next worst thing to happen to Christendom. Hating Harry became a popular pastime. It still is, though some of the energy of the anti-Harry Potter movement seems to have worn away as the books have aged and become less of a novelty.

Was this outcry deserved? Have hordes of schoolchildren really embraced witchcraft at the bidding of the green eyed wizard boy? Have we all been taken in by the golden griffin?

Snopes and truthorfiction.com agree that the internet rumors you've probably all heard about the scores of young people eagerly embracing Satanism have no basis in fact. Have individual readers turned from the straight and narrow after entering Harry's world? Perhaps, but that's not Harry's fault. If John Granger is right, it's not even Potter author J.K. Rowling's fault.

According to Fox News, while he was a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama endorsed William Ayers' book A Kind and Just Parent: Children of the Juvenile Court . In the endorsement, state senator Obama praised the book as "searing and timely." I am not aware of any remarks from the McCain camp about this latest link between Ayers and Obama, but I would not be surprised to see this emerge as a talking point. Meanwhile, Obama's camp is claiming that the endorsement was not a review of the entire book. This seems like a sensible defense of Senator Obama's endorsement. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that Senator Obama simple believed the book's title (for example) to be "searing and timely."

I believe that the evidence clearly demonstrates that Senator Obama and William Ayers, a self-admitted perpetrator of domestic attacks against the United States, had a friendly relationship and have many areas of ideological agreement. Ideological agreement between the two can be seen most clearly in the area of education. Given Ayers age and position relative to Obama upon their meeting, it further seems reasonable to conclude that Ayers is something of an ideological mentor to Barack Obama. I hold a high view of the power of mentor / mentee relationships and believe that young people (such as myself) owe much of our early understandings / views of the world and personal networking success to such relationships.

My question to the Obama supporters out there: Does Obama's mentor / mentee relationship with Ayers matter? If not, why not?

Maybe.

McCain's performance in this debate was better than in those previous. Will this be enough to close the gap between him and Senator Obama? We'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, it's clear that Joe the plumber was the real winner here.

McCain was careful to distance himself from President Bush. His 'If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago' was one of the best lines of the evening. Much as I'd like to tell you that substance will always trump rhetoric, the truth is that soundbites really matter in an election, so this line was important.

Obama was cool, calm, and collected throughout the evening, almost to the point of detachment. McCain was controlled, but visibly passionate. Some will think that Obama's demeanor indicated a sort of academic objectivity, but others will be pleased that McCain recognizes the place of moral outrage as the most powerful motivating force in politics.

On the question of negative campaigning, McCain stated that the tone of the campaign might have been different if Obama had agreed to his numerous debate invitations earlier in the campaign. The ensuing discussion put Obama on the defense as McCain asked him point blank to repudiate charges of McCain/Palin racism and segregationalism. After a discussion of McCain's own negative tactics, Obama never really answered the charge. Many will say that McCain should have pushed him on it more.

Despite Senator Obama's statement that his controversial connections to Bill Ayres have been the center of McCain's campaign in recent days, some conservatives will be disappointed that McCain didn't make more mention of Obama's several questionable associations.

Obama's repeated assertions that "we all need to work together" were a little ironic given his very consistent record of voting with his party, particularly when McCain is so well known for voting according to his own line rather than any party line.

Obama clearly denied his his votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Trouble is, his vote is a matter of record.

And Joe the plumber? If McCain is smart, we'll be hearing a lot more about Joe right up to election day.

6:01 PM - Contrary to what Charlie Gibson just said, McCain is not double digets behind, he has actually gained ground and is only down by 5 according to Rassmuessen. 

6:04 PM - McCain: 'We need to buy bad home mortgages.'  Obama: 'We are experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.  There is not yet a rescue package for the Middle Class.  He wants to end tax-breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas.  Provide a Middle-Class tax cut for families making less than $200k.  We need to invest in our education system.'  McCain: 'Joe the plumber wants to buy a business, but Sen. Obama wants to raise his tax bracket.' 

Here's the Obama narrative: There is us (the middle class) and them (the wealthy and big businesses).  Tax breaks either go to us or to them.  We want it, they don't need it, so we SHOULD get it.  Here's the McCain narrative: Why do we need to spread the wealth around (as Obama has explicitly said)?  It is false to suggest that Joe the plumber needs to fail in order for others to succeed.  Nobody likes taxes, lets not raise taxes.  Busineses in America are paying the second highest tax rate in the world.  Companies will go where they can create jobs.  Of all times in America, we need to ENCOURAGE business and not condemn them for their success. 

Senator Obama has a lot of nerve bringing up Exxon Mobile's $12 billion in profits without having the intellectual integrity to admit that the Federal Government made $33 billion in profits off of the same oil!

It didn't hit me until just now that yesterday was Columbus day. Allow me to belatedly take advantage of this yearly opportunity to remind you that the stories you were probably taught in school were wrong: the people of Christopher Columbus' time did not believe the world was flat.

See, when I was in school I was taught, as I imagine you probably were, that Columbus' journey was looked down upon by ignorant flat-earthers who were much less visionary than our intrepid explorer.

It's a nice story, except for one thing: there were no flat-earthers in Columbus' time. At least, none that were prominent enough to matter. Columbus did not have difficulty securing money for his voyage because he believed the earth was round, but rather because his calculations were off and everyone knew it.

The lesson? Even the most mistaken public figures can make up for it in time with a good PR campaign... and don't believe everything you were taught in middle school.

WIth only three weeks left until the election, here's the best of what I've read today (summed up by yours truly):

"How do you solve a problem? Like, Obama!" (Mark Steyn)

"The black hole of Obama will suck you in through the awesome power of its totally cool suckiness."

It's the furniture, stupid... (The NYT)

Believe it or not, set design may help determine who will be the next leader of the free world. (HT Matt Lewis)

Narrative FAIL? (Patrick Ruffini)

"Can someone please explain to me the single word that describes the McCain campaign? Even if they came to one now, they'd be 19 months too late."

More to come...

In my post last week I made the point that one consequence of the state sanctioning same-sex marriage would be that the same-sex lobby would be able to use our schools to normalize homosexuality. "No on 8" proponents counter my argument by assuring us that this is not the intention at all behind the legalizing of same-sex marriage in California. Somebody from the "No on 8" campaign should have told that to eighteen first graders who attended the wedding of their lesbian school teacher just recently.

Providentially, I received this notice from a good friend just today:

NEWS RELEASE Contact: Chip White, 916-215-4392 and For Immediate Release Sonja Eddings Brown, 818-993-4508

First Graders Taken To San Francisco City Hall For Gay Wedding

SAN FRANCISCO, October 11 - In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as "lies" claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court's decision to legal same-sex marriage has real consequences.

Shelley Mandell, President of the L.A. Chapter of the National Organization for Women, heartily endorsed Sarah Palin at the October 4th rally in Carson, CA. NOW has very clearly distanced itself from Ms. Mandell with a strongly worded statement in favor of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, excerpted below:

A member and officer of the Los Angeles NOW chapter, Shelly Mandell, recently introduced Governor Sarah Palin at an event in Carson, California. Ms. Mandell was speaking as an individual and was not authorized to represent NOW, the NOW PAC or LA NOW in any capacity in connection with a federal candidate endorsement. As NOW President Kim Gandy said upon Palin's selection , "Not every woman supports women's rights."

The use of Shelly Mandell's Los Angeles NOW title was apparently intended to mislead the public, and indeed has resulted in local television outlets and internet reports misstating that LA NOW has "endorsed" Sarah Palin or that she has a record of supporting women's rights. This in fact is not the case.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more talk about this.

I think (though only time will tell) that this helps Palin with both Conservatives and with former Hillary supporters. Conservatives will cheer at NOW's consternation, and the former Hillary supporters that Palin needs to attract will now have even more reason to take note of her.

While speaking with people about the issue of same-sex marriage, I often hear people claim that they see no harm in voting to allow same-sex couples to marry since they, the voter, will not be affected. When I hear this, I become concerned for my fellow citizens. I become concerned because I believe they have been deceived into thinking that good work being done by our families to raise children is unimportant to our society. People have been deceived because the implications of a law normalizing same-sex marriage have largely been kept quiet. However, make no mistake, the normalizing of a poorly constructed ideology framework for the family is truly the motivation for people wanting proposition 8 to fail.

The Family Research Council has produced a great video addressing what has already happened in Massachusetts as a result of laws legalizing same-sex marriage.

I have a lot of thoughts on this issue which I will address in a later post. However, the salient facts are that, in the state of California, same-sex couples who enter into a civil-union obtain the exact same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples. In fact, some would argue that same-sex couples have more benefits especially when it comes to areas like adoption where same-sex couples often receive preferential status. In light of this, it is clear that the strategy being played out in California is akin to the one played out in Massachusetts. If proposition 8 fails, the next move that the same-sex lobby makes is into the classroom. Please watch this video and consider whether it would be good if this happened in California.

It all depends on who you ask. Democrats will say that Obama won. Republicans will probably tell you that McCain dominated. Radio audiences will have a different take than TV audiences, etc.

Then there's Drudge, who just says it was "Boring."

My take? I think both candidates did very well. There were no major gaffes, at least none that were immediately obvious on a first viewing. Despite Sarah Palin's earlier statement that it's 'time to take the gloves off' there weren't any big surprises tonight. Obama's controversial connections to William Ayres were not mentioned, leading one to wonder whether the McCain team is saving its ammunition for the very final days of the race.

Perhaps the most memorable moment in the debate was Obama's statement about McCain's song version of "Bomb, bomb Iran." This will hurt McCain's rankings with some audiences but may actually help him with others because, let's face it, it's an amusing mental image...

All in all a solid debate, but not a game-changer for either party.

*6:04 - Obama: 'we are in a worse economic situation since the depression. The fault: the worst economic policies of the last eight years. They deregulated.' Again, Obama spoke out against Fannie/Freddie, but he had no compunction against being the second biggest beneficiary of their monies. Obama says he wants oversight, yet when John McCain pushed for regulation and oversight two years ago, Democrats shut him down.

*6:07 - McCain: 'Sec of Treasury would buy up bad mortgages. Until we stabilize the economy, we will not turn things around and get things working. McCain would possibly appoint Meg Whitman or Warren Buffet. Great answers. Contrary to Obama who runs to the government as a source of oversight, McCain would go to the private sector, to hard working, leading Americans to solve the problem. Not Wall Street regulars, not people within the American government. Obama did not name names as to who he would consider appointing as treasury secretary. That is very curious for the man who is assumed to be strong on the economy.

*6:11 - McCain: 'Not bailout, it's a rescue' plan. McCain has confidence in the recovery in the economy. John McCain is right, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operated with the encouragement of Sen. Obama and the Democrats who pushed the sub-prime legislation. 'Obama, the second highest recepient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in history.' Yep.