Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, CA. Pastor Rick Warren
The consensus among conservatives is that John McCain greatly outshone Barack Obama last week in the event at Lake Forest's Saddleback Church. Wishful thinking on our part? I really don't think so.
In a general sense, I have to say that McCain came across as decisive, whereas Obama, minus his teleprompter, tended to meander his way through his responses, as he typically does. McCain demonstrated that he knows what he believes. Obama probably does too, but there is the suspicion that he is trying to walk a middle line to appeal to the greatest number of voters.
To be more specific, Obama handled the fetus question badly, as many others have already pointed out. When asked by Pastor Rick Warren at what point does (an unborn child) have human rights, Obama couldn't answer. His now-famous non-answer was a wandering reference to the scientific and theological implications of the question ended by an admission that the answer was "above my pay grade". (Excuse me, Sir, but if you are President of the United States, no one will be above your pay grade.) McCain, on the other hand, answered unequivocally, "At the moment of conception."
Obama also stepped in it over the "ideal Supreme Court judge" issue. When asked who he would not have nominated to the Supreme Court, he listed Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. While acknowledging Scalia's superb legal mind, Obama took a shot at Thomas in challenging his legal expertise and qualifications for the job.
What is that old saying about living in glass houses? How does Obama question the qualifications of Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court without reminding voters of one of his own biggest problems-the question of his qualifications for president?
In his answer, McCain listed the 4 top liberals on the Supreme Court (Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter). For a conservative, that should be music to our ears and accentuates the importance of judicial appointments in this election.
Kudos to Pastor Warren in drawing up the questions and designing the format. One can question the idea of having such an event in a church, but both candidates participated. Personally, I don't think it is objectionable since the religious community has the same right to participate in the political process as anyone else.
This last observation may, indeed, be wishful thinking, but I see a downward trend for Obama. Perhaps, it is a case of too much exposure too soon, added to details coming out regarding his past and his associations. I also think the European trip turned off a lot of Americans-especially the appearance in Berlin.
I have made this comment before, but it bears repeating. Smooth talkers like Obama can talk their way in the front door-and talk their way right out the back.
17 comments:
"[...] there is the suspicion that he is trying to walk a middle line to appeal to the greatest number of voters."
A presidential candidate?! Never!
McCain is doing the same thing. Have you already forgotten that he trashed Christian conservatives for years?
From what I saw, Obama's answers were more thoughtful and truthful, whereas McCain seemed like he was just telling the fundies what they wanted to hear as usual. Except his answer on stem cell research. I heard he got that one wrong.
Oh Obama's answers are thoughtful alright. Too thoughtful. He is trying to please as many people as possible and deceive us into thinking he really is a moderate when he is really a far-leftist.
I would have much more respect for one who proudly states that he is a liberal and comes right out with what he believes. That is what true conservatives do. We are not embarassed about being conservatives. Obama knows that if people knew what he really beieves, he would never be elected.
PS Bryan,
I am not saying that McCain is the perfect conservative. Why don't you read my previous postings on McCain during the primary process? There is much that conservatives don't like about him. However, we have two choices. I for one have decided McCain is my only choice. I agree on much of what he stands for but not all.
Gary, I know you've probably followed quite a few presidential elections, so I would think you'd realize by now that ALL candidates for the two major parties make a post-primary shift towards the political center. This is nothing new, and McCain is doing the exact same thing.
Also, to call Obama a far-leftist is a joke. As an actual leftist, let me tell you that Obama is no leftist. You should check out this site, take their test, and let me know what it says for you:
http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
Bryan,
You are correct about candidates going post-primary toward the center. But, in my opinion, McCain has to be very careful in this approach.
Obama is not a leftist??!!?
And if I take the test, what will it show about me-that I am a leftist?
No, no, it just shows you where you fit in on a more accurate political scale. Rather than just a simple left to right scale, it goes up and down as well. It's much more accurate. I'm sure it'll say you're a conservative, it's just for fun.
And of course Obama isn't a leftist. He's a liberal. Those are two different things. Examples of leftist political philosophies: socialism, communism, anarchism, maybe social democracy, although that one is debatable. Last time I checked, Obama doesn't subscribe to any of those.
The political spectrum in America is incredibly narrow and skewed towards the right.
Bryan,
I don't think I need to take a test to know what I believe after 63 years.
Granted, terms like far-left vs liberal, far-right vs conservative can be a matter of interpretation. Both liberals and conservatives tend to be more focused on the extremes of the other side than their own. For example, I don't really know how to define a right-winger.
The suspicion with Obama, which I share, is that he thinks much farther to the left than he wants us to know. His associations with people like Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres and others raises a lot of red flags. Some of his writings from the past are also troubling (Dreams of my Father)- No, I have not read the book, only excerpts.
It is not what he and people like the Clintons say about their ideas-it is the worker bees that they bring to Washington and put on the bench that tell the tale.
Obama just doesn't have the record of a leftist. Like I said, I am a leftist (a socialist, to be precise), so I read leftist literature which critiques Obama. I am to the left of Obama. He is not a leftist. It's like if I called McCain a fascist. He just isn't.
Again, go to that link. Don't even take the test, just read the page. It explains how in the U.S. our political spectrum is occupied by a very narrow range of opinions.
Bryan,
Obama's voting record in Congress is the most liberal of anyone according to some group that keeps track of those things. You may not consider him a Socialist by your criteria, but I would. He wants a bigger govt, redistribution of wealth through more taxes, and so on. You can call it different things, like progressive-which used to be a code word for communist, actually, but it's the same. Obama is posing as a center-left candidate, but his real position is solid left.
I can see there's just no getting through to you on this one, Gary, but I'll try one more time.
I am a leftist.
Because of that, I think I know what a leftist is.
Barack Obama is not a leftist.
Barack Obama is a liberal.
The most liberal senator? I kind of doubt that. The democratic party wouldn't nominate such a person. Isn't that the same "smear" they used back in 2004 against Kerry? Ooooo, he's the most liberal senator, be afraid! I always thought the most liberal senator was Ted Kennedy, but I guess I was wrong...
You've just been brainwashed from watching too much Bill O'Reilly to think that anyone even the slightest bit to the left of Joe Lieberman is a "far-left" pinko commie.
C'mon, Bryan.
Probably the only difference between you and Obama is that he is running for president and thus, trying to fool us into thinking he is more to the middle-which he is not. You and I have the luxury of stating whatever we believe because we are nobodies.
It takes a lot to brainwash me at this stage of my life. My conservative attitudes have been formed over 63 years of life, military service, law enforcement and thinking about specific issues and considering an overall philosophy of life, the world and govt. These attitudes were formed long before Bill O'Reilly came down the pike.
You say the Democratic Party would never nominate such a leftist as Obama? You mention Kerry. How much do you know about his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry and her Heinz Foundation? How about Jimmy Carter?
True, Clinton governed as a moderate because the Republican-controlled Congress kept him in check, but what do think his (and her) agenda was when they entered the White House? Look at the two Supreme Court justices he gave us.
I guess we just have a different interpretation of Socialist vs liberal. To me, the Democratic Party has a socialist vision of America in the European mold. I view that as a bad idea for our country. To you, the Dems don't go far enough to the left.
You just have too loose of a definition of the term leftist or socialist (and it's with a lowercase "s", capital "S" implies there is some monolithic socialist entity to which I belong, which is false).
Obama has lots of ties to big business and corporations. Why in the world they would support someone who was opposed to capitalism (that's part of being a leftist or socialist)?
When Hillary was still running, Fortune magazine had an article praising her as being the candidate favored by the corporate world.
I'm sorry Gary, but to call any Democrat a leftist or a socialist is laughable. Try telling that to someone in Europe where they actually have some active socialist parties, and they would laugh at you.
A question: if Obama is a far-left socialist, and I'm to the left of Obama, what does that make me? Am I just completely off the scale?
Must we get into semantic details here? OK, socialist is a general term, and Socialist indicates an entity.
Big business and corporations contribute to both parties in the hope of getting some kind of breaks from whoever wins. That's what lobbyists do. Hillary at heart is a socialist (small case), but winning is the botton line for her, so she will gladly position herself to the center, as did Bill. It works.
As for European socialism, having spent over 10 years living in Europe, I recognize that terms are not exactly the same there as here. Yet, I firmly believe tht Democrats see the Western European socialism as a model to emulate in the US.
So Bryan, if you are to the left of Obama, what exactly does that make you? A communist, perhaps? Only you can answer that one?
And going back to Bill O'Reilly (who allegedly brainwashed me), if I am not mistaken, you are a college student or recent grad. Have you possibly been brainwashed, er..influenced by college professors? Think carefully before you answer.
Must we get into semantic details here? OK, socialist is a general term, and Socialist indicates an entity.
Big business and corporations contribute to both parties in the hope of getting some kind of breaks from whoever wins. That's what lobbyists do. Hillary at heart is a socialist (small case), but winning is the botton line for her, so she will gladly position herself to the center, as did Bill. It works.
As for European socialism, having spent over 10 years living in Europe, I recognize that terms are not exactly the same there as here. Yet, I firmly believe tht Democrats see the Western European socialism as a model to emulate in the US.
So Bryan, if you are to the left of Obama, what exactly does that make you? A communist, perhaps? Only you can answer that one?
And going back to Bill O'Reilly (who allegedly brainwashed me), if I am not mistaken, you are a college student or recent grad. Have you possibly been brainwashed, er..influenced by college professors? Think carefully before you answer.
Bryan,
With all due respect, we are trying to mark defining lines of liberal-socialist-communist here. Do we really want to argue at which point one crosses from one to the other? I don't. To make it simple, Obama wants to create a bigger, more powerful govt, with more taxes, more regulation-especially over business and corporations and a lot more "stuff" for people. Well, to give people more "stuff", you have to get the money from the people (taxes).
If you want more from your government, you have to give them more revenue and more power. I don't want anything from my govt-other than my govt pension, which I earned. I want them to leave me alone.
If you want to see how a big govt screws things up, look no farther than Sacramento. Those folks up there are socialists.
By the way, remember what the official name of the Soviet Union was. Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.
You had socialist beliefs in grade school? What did you do, take away the other kids lunch money?
I don't know what your USSR comment is supposed to mean. Are you trying to demonize me by associating me with the USSR?
The USSR wasn't truly socialist any more starting around the time Stalin came to power. Just because a country has a descriptive word in its name, that doesn't make that description true. North Korea's name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I guess North Korea is democratic after all, it says so right in their name!
As was the German Democratic Republic (E Germany) Democratic in the sense that someone in the halls of power voted-not the folks.
No, I am not trying to demonize you with the USSR line, just to point out that the Soviets referred to themselves as "socialists". In English, their buzz word was "progressive" (Sound familiar?)
Again, if you want to engage in a debate about why the USSR wasn't socialist anymore when Stalin came to power, I don't see what the distinction was except that Stalin was much more brutal than Lenin. If anything, it created greater centralization-especially in regards to the non-Russian nationalities and their languages. Under Lenin, there was "indigenization (korenizatsiia), whereby the native cultures and languages were stressed in the non-Russian republics.
Under Stalin, a Georgia, that was changed to Russification including the language.
If interested, you can check out my book on that topic from the UCI library
The languages of the former soviet republics-their history and development.
Or if you really have a lot of money to throw away, you can buy it at the uci bookstore ($75-cheap).
On second thought, if you are on a socialist income, you'd better get it out of the library. (LOL)
Post a Comment