I am breaking one of my rules about discussing politics on this blog. If you know you have a huge disagreement with me about politics, it may be best for you to go look at posts about cooking or our family or knitting or some other blog right now and return when I'm not talking politics anymore. Also, re-read my disclaimer above.

I have been watching the interviews from the Saddleback Forum, and reading (and re-reading) the transcripts to try to get an understanding for what was said without being influenced by body language and facial expressions. And can I just say right off the bat that Rick Warren sounds like he's campaigning to be the presidential pastor?

Obama says that he is convinced that there is a moral element to the abortion issue and debate. Wow. I'm assuming he also is convinced that the sky is blue, water is wet and fire is hot. I'm sure there are people who found this to be a profound statement and a deep concession to the opposing side, but it was simply a general stating of the obvious, regardless of which side one takes.

He also repeated the trope that abortion has gone up during the Bush administration. This is demonstrably false. The Guttmacher Institute's own findings (the research arm of PP) are what show that the abortion rate is dropping.

He says that he wishes to reduce abortions and has added that goal to his party's platform, yet he is the only Democrat who voted against a Born Alive Act. I believe he is the only senator period who voted against it. He has lied about that, and now his own campaign is admitting that they put out incorrect information, but they are still focusing on how others are pointing out his record and how mean and unfair that is, rather than the fact that he has tried to hide his record, lied about his vote and the wording of the bill he voted against and the laws of Illinois at the time. He accused the NRLC of lying about him when they presented his voting record. He owes them an apology. Regardless of one's views on abortion, an infant born alive after an abortion attempt surely counts as a person according to the law and common sense. He, in fact, voted to protect an infanticide that is recognized as such by people on both sides of the issue, yet, he is the one insulted? Even Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi voted for the Born Alive Act in the senate. Even NARAL did not object to these bills!

I imagine for a lot of the people watching, hearing that there have been over 40 million abortions since Roe v Wade was a shock. Considering that number doesn't include any multiples (ie, if there are more than one in the uterus, it is still considered one abortion), or selective reductions, that number is not high enough to be accurate. His statement that he thinks America's biggest moral failure is not living up to Matthew's teaching [sic] (it was Jesus' teaching, actually, but nice job looking up a bible verse online) of doing unto the least of these as we do unto the Lord does not square with his aggressive commitment to the sacrament of abortion. He has consistently had NARAL's 100% rating for his voting record. Apparently, there are some least of these who aren't as least as others.

edited to add: Now there's the issue of his half brother in Kenya(in case you don't like/trust the other source). Another least of these that doesn't count, I guess. Apparently, we are supposed to help the least of these, unless they happen to be related to us and require us sacrificing our own money. Why is it that those most likely to ask us to dig deep into our pockets for higher taxes to help the poor almost always seem so reluctant to do anything themselves to help the poor in their midst, personally? If he didn't speak out on the importance of everyone spending more to help others, it would really be his own account (and between him and his God) whether he helped his half brother or not, but we're supposed to shell out for all sorts of questionable results programs while he doesn't even get held accountable for not helping a family member. Unbelievable. And please spare me the Cindy McCain argument, her sister was being raised in a middle class home, this is less than $1 a month folks, in a shanty, and Obama is the one campaigning on how much we should help the poor. They have met before, twice, once two years ago, and Barack Obama does not deny that this is his half-brother. I'm beginning to think that his greatest moral failing as a nation answer was a confession.

It turns out that both the candidates knew what the first two questions were going to be, and that Obama actually was given one more question (the one about an emergency plan for orphans) ahead of time than McCain was (the Saddleback people never got to tell McCain about that one) and both were given the broad themes of the interview. It seems bizarre to me that Obama wasn't able to answer these questions better. Surely, especially in a forum taking place in a church, he would know what to expect in terms of social policy and moral issue questions? He seemed ill prepared for those. Does that mean there is nobody in his entire campaign who thought to vet those issues? The McCain people basically said there wasn't much there that they didn't expect, and that they had actually prepared him for a few more issues than were touched on in the forum. (Incidentally, I think the question about which justices they wouldn't have nominated was an unfair question, though Obama's saying that Justice Thomas didn't have enough experience shows an intense amount of chutzpah, given his own level of political experience. Also, the no repercussions questions was dumb, because, obviously this was not the case.)

So now the Obama camp and his supporters are trying to accuse McCain of cheating. This is becoming kind of a standard operating procedure for when liberals don't get the outcome they like. There is much less evidence of McCain cheating than there was for the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Hmmm. As for the cross in the dirt story, there is evidence from other POWs that this is what happened, and that McCain told them about it long ago. Evidently, Chuck Colson has a similar story. Are we to believe that he also is now being accused of cribbing from the Gulag Archipelago? And this is supposed to discredit McCain. The people who are saying that are showing, yet again, a great lack of knowledge about Christian symbolism. The cross, that is the major sign for Christianity. The reason there are so many similar stories has more to do with that, than any plagiarism. Just like in the early Roman persecution, Christians made the symbol of the fish in the dirt to let people know they were Christians/where the next church meeting was to be/etc. That there were so many incidents of it wasn't because all the persecuted church was just making up stories. That people are using this to discredit McCain shows that they cannot find anything else with which to discredit him.

I just don't buy the newfound religiosity of the left. Obama's references to religion and faith seem like he looked up "how to speak like an evangelical" on google. His pastor, who he has chosen to be under for over 20 years, who he has spoken of as a moral model and spiritual advisor, who speaks publicly and politically, seems to spend more time on politics than on the gospel. Please don't get me wrong, I don't mean that he has no right to speak about politics, but when his sermons are stump speeches, and hateful ones at that, it makes me question his knowledge of the scriptures and church history. He doesn't speak about political principles one can find in scripture, he speaks about politics, period. And a particularly bizarre version of it. Yet this is who Obama chooses to look to for spiritual guidance. The denomination itself is moving further and further from orthodox Christianity toward universalism and secularism. It certainly has the right to do that, but to represent it as traditional Christianity and Christian thought is misleading at best.

So, frankly, I don't believe Obama's religious talk, anymore than I believed either Clinton's rediscovering the faith of their youths when their ratings got low, or Howard Dean's sincerity and depth of faith when he said that his favorite book in the New Testament [sic] (it's in the Old Testament) was Job, but that there was a difference of opinion about the ending - he seemed to think was punitive rather than redemptive. They try to sound like they have deep faith and knowledge of faith, but instead sound phony. I am more likely to trust a person's faith (regardless of religion) is sincere even if he has failed or is deeply misguided, if he at least knows the basics without stumbling or relying on cliched religious speak, even when I disagree with the conclusions he may draw. This isn't about a difference between private faith and wearing it on one's sleeve, this is basic 101 knowledge and understanding. It's elementary level, not graduate work. Nobody is asking any candidate to be a theologian. The verse from Micah Obama referenced is a good one, but walking humbly with our God means that we submit to His rule, not find a way to make our rules His. A priest I know says that a text without context is a pretext, and that is what I see from the social left (to distinguish them from the people who are further left with regards to fiscal policy or foreign policy, but not social policy).

So, when people who are so dedicated to secularism and are so opposed to traditional religion try to put it on like a jacket it rings false. It also shows that they think that religious people are too stupid to realize that they are trying it on like a costume. When Obama made his infamous gaffe about people clinging to God and guns, it wasn't just that he made an extremely insulting statement, it was that it never occurred to him, to his staff, to his speech writers, to his entire campaign that it would be seen that way. It is normal for them to think and believe such insulting things about religious people. They believe it so much that they believe everyone else does, too. Then, they add a few God bless yous and references to prayer and hope people won't see their contempt for traditional religion. Also, I just don't believe, based on his track record so far, that he truly wants the American people to know him. I also don't believe that he trusts the American people, based on his statements so far. He has a serious credibility issue, as far as I am concerned, and that does not give me confidence that he is the right man for the job.

Now, don't take this to mean that I am all over McCain. I disagree with him on several issues, I think he's wrong ideologically on some specific issues, I don't like his moral past with regards to his marriage, though I respect his war procedure more than the current administration's, and his voting record reassures me a little on some things.

I'd really rather vote no at the polls in two and a half months than elect either of these men. Maybe we should just try four years without a president and see what we get? There were three candidates I could get behind when the campaign started back in 1995, but one by one they dropped off. However, when one has at least some connection to my political, social and fiscal values, and the other guy is on a different planet than mine, well, I guess I know who I'll vote for - though, I may be holding my nose when I do it.

Labels: Culture and Politics